Global Research

This interview with Canada’s CTV preceded Michel Chossudovsky’s public lectures in Winnipeg, Vancouver (January 2018) and Seoul South Korea at the ROK National Assembly in February 2018. 

Michel  Chossudovsky’s latest article (September 2018) on the Korea Peace Initiative and the Inter-Korean Dialogue

Does the DPRK Constitute a Security Threat to the USA?

The American people should, in the words of Vietnam War Veteran Brian Willson  “place themselves in the position of people living in targeted countries.”

What most people in America do not know –and which is particularly relevant when assessing the alleged “threats” of the DPRK to World peace– is that North Korea lost nearly thirty percent of its population as a result of  US led bombings in the 1950s

Every single family in North Korea has lost a loved one in the course of the Korean War (1950-53).

 

 

 

Britain’s domestic security service MI5 has been operating under a secret policy that allows its agents to commit serious crimes during counter-terrorism operations in the UK, a court in London has heard.

The limits on that policy remain secret, with the result that it is unclear whether agents have sheltered under it while committing murder or acts of torture, the court was told.

The policy began to be scrutinised by a senior judge in 2012, but that oversight was also kept secret and David Cameron, then the British prime minister, instructed the judge that he was to examine only the operation of the policy, and offer no opinion on whether or not it was lawful.

The existence of the secret policy, referred to in court as the “third direction”, emerged by chance earlier this year during litigation that challenged the British government’s domestic surveillance powers.

It allows MI5 officers to permit their agents – people from outside the agency whom they have recruited – to commit crimes in order to secure or maintain access to information that could be used to prevent other offences from being committed.

The order was first issued in 2014 and consists of just three sentences. It was renewed in 2017 and signed off by Theresa May, the current prime minister.

That policy is itself now being challenged, in a case that opened on Thursday at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a court that provides legal oversight of MI5, its overseas intelligence counterpart MI6, and the UK’s signals intelligence agency GCHQ.

The challenge is being brought by two London-based NGOs, Reprieve and Privacy International, and two in Northern Ireland, the Pat Finucane Centre and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. They argue that the policy is unlawful.

Their legal counsel, Ben Jaffey, told the tribunal that different versions of the policy had been operating since the 1990s; that it is still in place today; and that “the police and prosecutors will never be able to know when it is being activated”.

A heavily-redacted copy of the policy document that was disclosed in court says there are circumstances in which “it may sometimes be necessary and proportionate for agents to participate in criminality” in the interests of national security.

‘Long-standing policy’

The tribunal heard that David Cameron wrote to the judge who was tasked with providing legal oversight of the intelligence agencies, Sir Mark Waller, in November 2012, to inform him that “the Security Service has a long-standing policy for their agent handlers to agree to agents participating in crime”.

He added that “for the avoidance of doubt”, Waller’s oversight “would not provide endorsement of the legality of the policy”, and would not offer an opinion on the prosecution of any agents.

Cameron wrote the letter one month before he informed the UK’s parliament that an official inquiry into the 1989 murder of a Northern Ireland lawyer, Pat Finucane, had discovered what he described as “shocking levels of State collusion” between the loyalist paramilitary killers on the one hand, and MI5, the police and military intelligence on the other.

Finucane was shot 14 times by gunmen who burst into his home while he was having Sunday dinner with his wife and young children.

The case before the tribunal is expected to last many months, or even years. It will be watched closely in Northern Ireland, where evidence has begun to emerge showing that agents of the police and intelligence agencies committed enormous numbers of serious crimes during the 30-year conflict between the late 1960s and 1990s known as the Troubles, without being brought to justice.

Jaffey, the lawyer, raised the Finucane murder and also the case of Freddie Scappaticci, who was said to have been involved in kidnap, torture and murder while he was on the payroll of the British government at the same time as being a member of the IRA. Scappaticci, now in his seventies, was also known as “Stakeknife”.

There is less secrecy surrounding the manner in which British intelligence officers are authorised to commit crimes outside of the UK. Section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act, a piece of legislation dating back to 1994, is said to “disapply” UK criminal and civil law, as long as a senior government minister has signed a written authorisation.

The section is sometimes known as the “James Bond clause”.

Maya Foa, the director of Reprieve, said following Thursday’s hearing:

“We want to know if it’s government policy to let MI5 agents get away with serious crimes such as torture and murder.

“While our intelligence agencies have an important role in keeping this country safe, it does not follow that agents can be permitted to break the law without limits.

“If this is indeed the government’s position it must inform MPs and the public, and open the policy to legal and parliamentary scrutiny.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

For seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner independent media organizations, has sought Truth in Media with a view to eventually “disarming” the corporate media’s disinformation crusade.

With over 50,000 existing subscribers to our Newsletter, our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. 

*     *     *

Video: The Political Power of Weapons

By Manlio Dinucci, October 05, 2018

Military spending for 2018 is approximately 25 billion Euros, to which must be added other posts of a military character, bringing the total to more than 27 billion. This means more than 70 million Euros per day, which is on the increase because Italy has promised NATO to bring it up to about 100 million per day.

Venezuela and the United States – Contrasting Worldviews at the UN General Assembly

By Nino Pagliccia, October 05, 2018

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro stated the intention of his presence at the UNGA in order “to bring the truth of a people that struggles”. And as such he spoke frankly, directly and forcefully. His words were explicit and compelling about Venezuela’s principles and the issues affecting Venezuela vis-à-vis the United States. His speech had a lot to say about the U.S. referring to Donald Trump five times by name, and no less than eleven times as the “President of the United States”.

Illegal Sanctions: Pompeo Arranges Mass Starvation of Iranian People

By Kurt Nimmo, October 05, 2018

On Wednesday, Pompeo said the US will terminate a treaty with Iran put into place in 1955, two years after the CIA engineered a coup ousting the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Targeted in the Balkans: Russia’s Tiny Ally Republic of Srpska

By Stephen Karganovic, October 05, 2018

USAID and other outfits tied to the US and British governments make no secret of the fact that they are injecting funds into the Republic of Srpska, particularly the media and political groups friendly to their agenda, in order to tip the balance in their favor and detach the Republic of Srpska from “malign Russian influence.”

“China’s Big Hack”: The US Has Its Own Reasons For “Saving the World” From China’s Supposed Big Tech Spying

By Andrew Korybko, October 05, 2018

Bloomberg took over the global news cycle earlier today after it published an extensive report titled “The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate U.S. Companies”, which alleges that Chinese intelligence compromised the integrity of the global supply chain on which the country’s economy is dependent by clandestinely inserting hardware spying devices in tens of thousands of motherboards that eventually infected the likes of Amazon, Apple, the CIA, and many others.

The US Presidency of the United Nations Security Council’s Attempt to Demonize Nicaragua

By Carla Stea, October 04, 2018

On September 5, Ambassador Haley called a meeting on Nicaragua, and this meeting was fiercely opposed by numerous members of the Security Council, who stated that Nicaragua is not a threat to international peace and security, which is the mandate of the Security Council, and objected that the US was using the meeting in an attempt to manipulate the Security Council to gain authorization for intervention in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, as the US had done with Libya.

The United States has threatened to launch a preemptive military strike against Russia if it does not halt developing a banned cruise missile system.

Washington claims Moscow is violating a Cold War treaty and developing a ground-launched cruise missile which could empower Russia to launch a nuclear strike on Europe at short notice. Russia has repeatedly denied any such violation.

“At that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a (Russian) missile that could hit any of our countries,” US ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison said at a news conference on Tuesday in Brussels.

“Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty,” she added. “They are on notice.”

Russia has not so far made any comment on the unprecedented threat issued by the top US official permanently stationed in the NATO headquarters.

In the past, Moscow has said it is ready for talks with Washington to preserve the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and would comply with its rules and regulations if the United States did.

In 2017, the US State Department accused Russia of violating its obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km (310-3,417 miles).

A US official in the same year said that the United States would consider its own system if Russia continued its covert development of the banned system.

The three-decade-old arms control treaty bans the development of medium-range missiles capable of hitting Europe or Alaska.

“We have been trying to send a message to Russia for several years that we know they are violating the treaty, we have shown Russia the evidence that we have that they are violating the treaty,” Hutchison said.

“We are laying down the markers so that our allies will help us bring Russia to the table,” she added.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said he would raise the issue with his NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday and Thursday.

“I cannot forecast where it will go, it is a decision for the president, but I can tell you that both on Capitol Hill and in State Department, there is a lot of concern about this situation and I’ll return with the advice of our allies and engage in that discussion to determine the way ahead,” he told reporters in Paris on Tuesday following his meeting with French Defense Minister Florence Parly.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Introduction

The leading financial publications have misled their political and investor subscribers of emerging crises and military defeats which have precipitated catastrophic political and economic losses.

The most egregious example is the Financial Times (FT) a publication which is widely read by the business and financial elite.

In this essay we will proceed by outlining the larger political context that sets the framework for the transformation of the FT from a relatively objective purveyor of world news into a propagator of wars and failed economic policies.

In part two we will discuss several case studies which illustrate the dramatic shifts from a prudent business publication to a rabid military advocate, from a well-researched analyst of economic policies to an ideologue of the worst speculative investors.

The decay of the quality of its reportage is accompanied by the bastardization of language.  Concepts are distorted; meanings are emptied of their cognitive sense; and vitriol covers crimes and misdemeanors.

We will conclude by discussing how and why the ‘respectable’ media have affected real world political and market outcomes for citizens and investors.

Political and Economic Context 

The decay of the FT cannot be separated from the global political and economic transformations in which it publishes and circulates.  The demise of the Soviet Union, the pillage of Russia’s economy throughout the 1990’s and the US declaration of a unipolar world were celebrated by the FT as great success stories for ‘western values’.  The US and EU annexation of Eastern Europe, the Balkan and Baltic states led to the deep corruption and decay of journalistic narratives.

The FT willing embraced every violation of the Gorbachev-Reagan agreements and NATO’s march to the borders of Russia. The militarization of US foreign policy was accompanied by the FT conversion to a military interpreter of what it dubbed the ‘transition to democratization’.

The language of the FT reportage combined democratic rhetoric with an embrace of military practices.  This became the hallmark for all future coverage and editorializing.  The FT military policies extended from Europe to the Middle East, the Caucasus, North Africa and the Gulf States.

The FT joined the yellow press in describing military power grabs, including the overthrow of political adversaries, as ‘transitions to democracy’ and the creation of ‘open societies’.

The unanimity of the liberal and rightwing publications in support of western imperialism precluded any understanding of the enormous political and economic costs which ensued.

To protect itself from its most egregious ideological foibles, the FT included ‘insurance clauses’, to cover for catastrophic authoritarian outcomes. For example they advised western political leaders to promote military interventions and, by the way ,with ‘democratic transitions’.

When it became evident that US-NATO wars did not lead to happy endings but turned into prolonged insurgencies, or when western clients turned into corrupt tyrants, the FT claimed that this was not what they meant by a ‘democratic transition’ – this was not their version of  “free markets and free votes”.

The Financial and Military Times (?)

The militarization of the FT led it to embrace a military definition of political reality.  The human and especially the economic costs, the lost markets, investments and resources were subordinated to the military outcomes of ‘wars against terrorism’ and ‘Russian authoritarianism’.

Each and every Financial Times report and editorial promoting western military interventions over the past two decades resulted in large scale, long-term economic losses.

The FT supported the US war against Iraq which led to the ending of important billion-dollar oil deals (oil for food) signed off with President Saddam Hussein.  The subsequent US occupation precluded a subsequent revival of the oil industry.  The US appointed client regime pillaged the multi-billion dollar reconstruction programs – costing US and EU taxpayers and depriving Iraqis of basic necessities.

Insurgent militias, including ISIS, gained control over half the country and precluded the entry of any new investment.  

The US and FT backed western client regimes organized rigged election outcomes and looted the treasury of oil revenues, arousing the wrath of the population lacking electricity, potable water and other necessities.

The FT backed war, occupation and control of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster.

Similar outcomes resulted from the FT support for the invasions of Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. 

For example the FT propagated the story that the Taliban was providing sanctuary for bin Laden’s planning the terror assault in the US (9/11).

In fact, the Afghan leaders offered to turn over the US suspect, if they were offered evidence.  Washington rejected the offer, invaded Kabul and the FT joined the chorus backing the so-called ‘war on terrorism which led to an unending, one trillion-dollar war.

Libya signed off to a disarmament and multi-billion-dollar oil agreement with the US in 2003.  In 2011 the US and its western allies bombed Libya, murdered Gadhafi, totally destroyed civil society and undermined the US/EU oil agreements.  The FT backed the war but decried the outcome.  The FT followed a familiar ploy; promoting military invasions and then, after the fact, criticizing the economic disasters.

The FT led the media charge in favor of the western proxy war against Syria:  savaging the legitimate government and praising the mercenary terrorists, which it dubbed ‘rebels’ and ‘militants’ – dubious terms for US and EU financed operatives.

Millions of refugees, resulting from western wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled to Europe seeking refuge.  FT described the imperial holocaust – the ‘dilemmas of Europe’.  The FT bemoaned the rise of the anti-immigrant parties but never assumed responsibility for the wars which forced the millions to flee to the west.

The FT columnists prattle about ‘western values’ and criticize the ‘far right’ but abjured any sustained attack of Israel’s daily massacre of Palestinians.  Instead readers get a dose of weekly puff pieces concerning Israeli politics with nary a mention of Zionist power over US foreign policy.

FT: Sanctions, Plots and Crises:  Russia, China and Iran

The FT like all the prestigious media propaganda sheets have taken a leading role in US conflicts with Russia, China and Iran.

For years the scribes in the FT stable have discovered (or invented) “crises” in China’s economy- always claiming it was on the verge of an economic doomsday.  Contrary to the FT, China has been growing at four times the rate of the US; ignoring the critics it built a global infrastructure system instead of the multi-wars backed by the journalist war mongers. 

When China innovates, the FT harps on techno theft – ignoring US economic decline.

The FT boasts it writes “without fear and without favor” which translates into serving imperial powers voluntarily.

When the US sanctions China we are told by the FT that Washington is correcting China’s abusive statist policies.  Because China does not impose military outposts to match the eight hundred US military bases on five continents, the FT invents what it calls ‘debt colonialism” apparently describing Beijing’s financing large-scale productive infrastructure projects.

The perverse logic of the FT extends to Russia. To cover up for the US financed coup in the Ukraine it converted a separatist movement in Donbass into a Russian land grab. In the same way a free election in Crimea is described as Kremlin annexation.  

The FT provides the language of the declining western imperial empires.

Independent, democratic Russia, free of western pillage and electoral meddling is labelled “authoritarian”; social welfare which serves to decrease inequality is denigrated as ‘populism’ —linked to the far right.  Without evidence or independent verification, the FT fabricates Putinesque poison plots in England and Bashar Assad poison gas conspiracies in Syria. 

Conclusion

The FT has chosen to adopt a military line which has led to a long series of financially disastrous wars. The FT support of sanctions has cost oil companies billions of dollars, euros and pounds. The sanctions, it backed, have broken global networks.

The FT has adopted ideological postures that threaten supply chains between the West, China, Iran and Russia.  The FT writes in many tongues but it has failed to inform its financial readers that it bears some responsibility for markets which are under siege.

There is unquestionably a need to overhaul the name and purpose of the FT.  One journalist who was close to the editors suggests it should be called the “Military Times” – the voice of a declining empire.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

There is a very real possibility that Donald Trump will start a new war in the Middle East. If that’s not his intention, then his administration is doing a damn good job of faking it.

In July, in a late-night tweet from the White House, President Trump threatened Iran, in all caps, with

“CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED.”

Since that rant, Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seem to be taking pages from the Iraq War playbook. They are cherry-picking intelligence and inflating threats. They’re making specious connections between Iran and terrorists, including al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. And they’re ratcheting up their rhetoric.

Trump himself used his speech before the United Nations on September 25 to, as Mitchell Plitnick noted on this site, “build the case for aggression against Iran and even to add more obstacles to a peaceful resolution of tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic.” These tensions are about to get worse. In early November, the administration will hit countries doing business with Iran with a new round of harsh sanctions. The likelihood that this pressure will explode into military conflict is rising dramatically.

Counterproductive Strategy

War with Iran would be a painful and pointless disaster. It would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like warm-up acts. It would cost trillions of dollars, kill tens of thousands of people and destabilize an already volatile region. It would trigger a global recession as oil prices spike and uncertainty collapses markets. It would also drive the spread of nuclear weapons and increase the risk of nuclear weapons use.

War would not in any conceivable scenario lead to the establishment of a popular, democratic, and pro-Western government in Iran. With war would come chaos. If the current regime were to fall, the power would pass not to demonstrators in the streets but to those with the guns—the Revolutionary Guard. In all likelihood, war would bring to power a more virulent, more dictatorial, and more anti-American regime than the current one in Iran.

“The Administration’s emphasis on coercion and threats of military action without diplomatic engagement provides no exit ramp to avoid collision,” wrote 53 top national security former officials and experts in an open statement on September 23 assessing the Trump administration’s Iran strategy.

I was proud to join Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Carla Hills, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, President of the National Defense University General Robert Gard, and the others in this bipartisan appeal to reverse course before these reckless policies drag us into war.

Our warnings fell on deaf ears. The very next day, September 24, National Security Advisor John Bolton dramatically expanded the mission of U.S. combat forces in Syria, announcing that they would stay in that war-torn nation “as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias.” This approach risks bringing the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria into direct conflict with the estimated 10,000 Revolutionary Guard forces there.

On October 3, Bolton commandeered the White House podium to announce that the administration is cutting diplomatic ties even further. The United States has terminated, he said, the 1955 Treaty of Amity—a basic diplomatic accord that regulates economic and consular ties between America and Iran—blaming Iran directly for attacks on a now-closed U.S. consulate in Basra, Iraq even though an Iranian consulate was similarly attacked by an angry crowd. He called Iran a “rogue regime” and “the central banker for international terrorism” and countered reporters’ concerns that the United States was closing paths for diplomatic resolution with the assertion that U.S. actions “were closing doors that shouldn’t be opened.” He also claimed without evidence that “Iran is increasing its nuclear program.”

This is all part of a steady, coordinated drumbeat of anti-Iran activities. It began with the U.S. violation and withdrawal from the successful anti-nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This agreement reduced Iran’s nuclear program to a fraction of its former size, froze it for at least 15 years, and put it under the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated. But Bolton saw it as an obstacle to a regime-change strategy. Trump, obsessed with demolishing all that President Barack Obama achieved, was only too happy to raze the agreement.

This created a door that Bolton did want opened. The day Trump abandoned the Iran anti-nuclear accord, Bolton signaled that “what comes next” would be “a much broader resolution of the malign behavior that we see from Iran.” He quickly established an Iran Action Group to coordinate activities across agencies. The operation appears modeled on the White House Iraq Group created by the Bush administration to sell the public on the invasion of Iraq.

It is not clear if Trump actually wants a war, but Bolton and Pompeo certainly seem to. They were crystal clear speaking before an Iran hate group summit sponsored by United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) on September 25 in New York. Bolton threatened, “Let my message today be clear: We are watching, and we will come after you…There will indeed be hell to pay.”

Pompeo piled on, saying:

Has Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good neighbor? Has it contributed to the maintenance of international peace and security by fully abiding by the decisions of the Security Council? Let’s take a little walk around the world, and you’ll see the answer is a deafening “no.”

Iran in Comparison

Iran is guilty of many atrocities. The government oppresses women, fills its jails with political prisoners, and has one of the highest execution rates in the world.

Such behavior is not unique to Iran, however. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Trump’s strongest supporters in the region and Jared Kushner’s business partners, also oppress their people and have terrible human rights records. One outrageous example is the war the two are waging against Yemen that has led to the death of at least 16,200 Yemeni civilians and the starvation of 8.4 million. The leaders of these countries also have jails full of political prisoners, impose sharia law on their people, and much more. Americans would not enjoy living under the rule of either Saudi, UAE or Iranian governments.

American policy should be to change the behavior of these autocratic regimes, not to wage war on them.

Even if one agrees with the president’s objectives, the Bolton-Trump-Pompeo strategy won’t achieve them. That is why I joined with the other national security leaders in our plea for a more effective policy:

Applying pressure and unilateral sanctions without viable diplomatic options is highly unlikely to produce the desired outcome and could lead to a more dangerous, destructive and enduring regional conflict with Iran. A more balanced strategy that couples pressure with effective diplomacy, coming not just from the U.S. but from around the world, will be necessary to achieve U.S. objectives while showing an Iran without nuclear weapons a way forward to integration into the region.

If reasoned statements won’t work, maybe congressional action will. On September 26, eight senators, lead by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced legislation to prevent Trump from launching an unconstitutional war with Iran. “The administration’s approach to Iran is ripped straight out of the same playbook that launched us into the failed invasion of Iraq, and Congress needs to assert its constitutional authority and halt the march to war,” said Udall, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) added:

With the White House and Iran seemingly on a collision course, every effort must be made to avoid war. We should be ratcheting down the rhetoric, opening up channels of communication, and reducing the chance of igniting another armed conflict in a region where the consequences could be catastrophic.

These senators deserve widespread public support. Just like the Kavanaugh nomination, the administration is trying to push through its Iran policy before anyone can stop it. It’s urgent to do everything possible to slow down this war wagon.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Joe Cirincione is the president of Ploughshares Fund and the author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late. 

Featured image is from Shutterstock.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest,  adversed  to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” – James Madison, Federalist Paper 10 

Despite the historic stakes of the ram-through appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of a serial liar and alleged early rapist, who loudly denounces his Senate questioners as a “left-wing conspiracy” – sniffing all the time as his habit – there has been no legal analysis of his abetted crimes of persistent false statements and declarations, and factional subversion of the rule of law and the US Constitution itself. 

As law and moral philosophy professors writing just as the White-House-counsel controlled FBI ‘investigation’ is hidden under cover from citizens and the press, we are moved by duty to explain what has so far been lost in media melodrama, political cover-up at the highest levels, he-says-she-says reductions, and the politics of effectively usurping the rule of law in the United States.

As a branch of government it is unique from the other two branches of government – the legislative. and executive branches – in that the supreme Justices are arbiters of what is allowed or prevented by the US Constitution as  the ultimate source of the rule of law in America.  

All life-long appointees of the Supreme Court of the United States have a duty to exercise this supreme power, granted them by the people of the United States to protect and defend the rights of its citizens under the Constitution. As such, they are obliged to demonstrate legal impartiality and moral competence at the highest level in moral practise and public conduct.  

Supreme Court appointment of Kavanaugh resembles the operations of a hardened criminal gang

Yet what if the entire process is led by a long train of proved false declarations, persistently intentional misdirection, and perjury under oath with no restraint?

What if in both candidate for office and his Senate and White-House-counsel managers fix an obstruction of truth and justice and refusal to answer questions throughout, and level non-stop attacks and slanderous accusations of anyone stepping in the way? What if all the while intimidation of all resistance up to threats of death against the testifying victim rise in the background and the US President himself reverses his endorsement of the credibility of the witness against Kavanaugh and uses his bully pulpit to mock her in a televised public speech at a political rally? What if the FBI itself is used as a covertly operating instrument whose report is manipulated and made secret to the public and the press? 

 What if in all evident respects the process and appointment to the highest judicial office of the land operates like a criminal conspiracy with a vice-grip on all three branches of government – in the words of Madison, the very definition of ‘tyranny’ – with now the Supreme Court itself fixed to ignore and override basic issues of justice and morality for the next generation in a situation of cumulatively unprecedented social and environmental crisis?  

We have already seen the unraveling of even the need to appear objective, disinterested, above the political mob mentality and thuggery of this ruling faction in one long train of abuses, false statements and lying with impunity under oath. The reckless and grasping nature of the Kavanaugh appointment, in short, shows an unbound faction of power treating its position of tyrannical rule as its personal property and right.  

Step-by-step overthrow of the rule of law 

What has happened in Washington DC with the Kavanaugh hearings is of grave concern to anyone who believes in the democratic rule of law over a moneyed faction fixing all legal process. What this hearing and FBI investigation now controlled by the White House Counsel and ranking Senate Republicans shows is a series of non-stop false statements and actions that attack the very heart of our system of laws and poison the soul of the nation. 

In our considered legal and moral opinion, Kavanaugh’s continual false declarations and prevarications are grounds for impeachment in even his current position of Federal Court Judge.  In our judgement, with which many will agree, Trump’s candidate Kavanaugh has incontestably demonstrated unfitness for any judicial or public office.  His speech and actions under oath, to the US Senate, is enough to be disbarred and lose his law license.  

Kavanaugh has been so continuously coached from the highest offices of the land to act above the law in every regard that this corrupt appointment reaches into the depths of a ‘tyrannical faction’ now in control of our federal government and institutions. It has so overreached in lawless and naked abuse of power that only keeping the public in ignorance can allow it to continue into the mid-term elections this November – the acid test of US democracy which is now before us.   

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Matthew Stanton is a long practising Chicago attorney  and law professor, and John McMurtry is a moral philosopher and author whose work has been translated across the world. 

Since 2004, the US government has attacked thousands of targets in tribal areas along the Afghan border in Northwest Pakistan. It used unmanned aerial vehicles operated by the US Air Force under the operational control of the CIA’s Special Activities Division. Attacks increased substantially under Bush’s successor, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

A non-violent campaign in Pakistan against drone strikes by the Tehreek-e-Insaf party, led by Imran Khan, involved blocking the route to pressure Washington to stop targeting armed groups in the region bordering Afghanistan. NATO supply containers to and from Afghanistan via Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were stopped at border points until US drone attacks stop and a formal apology was later given to the government for the killings in Pakistan. It ended in 2014.

Imran Khan attacks those countrymen who support NATO’s war on the Taliban:

*“They have absolutely no idea. They sit in the drawing room. They read the English-language newspapers, which bear very little resemblance to what is real Pakistan. I promise you, they would be lost in our villages . . .

Khan believes the US are responsible for the rise of the Pakistani Taliban, allies of the Afghan Taliban.

“We ended up sending our army into our tribal areas at the request of the Americans. And our areas got devastated. We had, more or less, a civil-war situation there. The aid was minuscule compared to the loss of billions and billions and the blood our country spilt.”

A leaked document confirmed that 81 civilians including children died in this 2006 CIA drone strike

He adheres to the Sufi tradition of egalitarianism and the acceptance of all creeds and beliefs in society and believes:

“All terrorism is politics. All this nonsense of religious terrorism. There’s no such thing as religious terrorism. It’s politics behind it. The political injustice. Perceived injustice is why people pick up arms — throughout history.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Note

*Direct quotations from a hostile account in the Times

Images in this article are from Drone Warfare.

If Bloomberg’s bombshell report is to be believed, then the US just blew the whistle on what might be the world’s most expansive espionage operation of all time, but America is exposing China at this specific moment three years after its hardware spying devices might have infected tens of thousands of motherboards in some of the main Big Tech companies because it hopes to leverage this jaw-dropping revelation to its favor in the global “trade war”.

Bloomberg took over the global news cycle earlier today after it published an extensive report titled “The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate U.S. Companies”, which alleges that Chinese intelligence compromised the integrity of the global supply chain on which the country’s economy is dependent by clandestinely inserting hardware spying devices in tens of thousands of motherboards that eventually infected the likes of Amazon, Apple, the CIA, and many others. The piece deserves to be read in full in order to grasp the magnitude of what China’s being accused of and ultimately draw one’s own conclusions about the matter, but while it can’t be known for sure whether everything contained within it is true or not, it’s unquestionable that its publication at this point in time serves a tacit strategic purpose for the Trump Administration in its global “trade war” with the People’s Republic.

Uncovering The Conspiracy

Before getting to that, a concise summary of the report is in order. Basically, Bloomberg alleges that American intelligence became aware of what might be the world’s most expansive espionage operation in history sometime in 2015, after which it spent the next three years tracing the source of these hardware plants and uncovering the entire network. The outlet asserts that China inserted these miniscule rice grain-sized devices inside of motherboards being built in the country by Supermicro’s subcontractors, which in turn provided equipment to a company called Elemental that then sold its wares to Big Tech companies and some of the US’ military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”). Throughout the course of their investigation, the US security services secretly intercepted communications and relied on informants within the same supply chain that China had allegedly compromised, therefore compromising it yet again in its own way.

Screengrab from Bloomberg

It should have already been taken for granted that intelligence agencies were operating within the global supply chain, but the scale at which China supposedly was is unprecedented in terms of anything that had hitherto been made public, though one might cynically imagine that “another Snowden” might one day reveal much worse activity carried out by the US. That’s only in the realm of speculation for now, though, and not even the US’ enemies have accused it of doing what America is now saying that China is guilty of, though it’s probably not for a lack of trying. To be blunt, the US doesn’t have the opportunity to do what it says China did because it no longer builds much of the world’s technological products like the People’s Republic does, which means that the entire world is hypothetically at risk of being spied upon through these secret motherboard hardware devices.

The World’s Most Wide-Ranging Espionage Operation?

According to the report, Chinese intelligence wasn’t doing this to check out people’s iCloud pictures but to actively penetrate the world’s most influential Big Tech companies in order to steal their trade secrets. This narrative aligns with what the Trump Administration had previously warned about when it came to China’s 2025 policy of becoming the world’s economic superpower through its focus on high-tech industrial gains. In essence, the actual conspiracy being asserted is that China took advantage of its role as the “world’s factory” to plant spying devices inside of the hardware that some companies within its territory produced so as to informally advance a “Build-Operate-Transfer” (BOT) model whereby foreign firms built factories inside of the country, operated them as they liked, but unknowingly had their trade secrets transferred to China. According to this interpretation, China’s 2025 policy would be achieved by stolen intellectual property.

It’s impossible for anyone to independently corroborate this theory, but the very fact that Bloomberg’s piece was released at this particular point in time points to this being a “weaponized leak” by the US “deep state”. The report itself even says that the Pentagon invited a handful of Big Tech executives to a low-key gathering where they were encouraged to pursue commercial products for detecting hardware implants, which if true is proof of the close relationship between the “deep state” and the private sector that wouldn’t inconceivably also extend to the mass media too (as the coordinated attacks against Trump by the faction of the “deep state” opposed to him strongly suggest). Taken to its relevant conclusion, the same “deep state” that supposedly investigated this wide-ranging Chinese espionage operation might have ‘encouraged’ Bloomberg to run this piece after feeding it the relevant information needed to put it all together.

Mixing The Trade War With Infowar

That shouldn’t be taken to mean that everything contained within it is false, but just that the US has a self-interested reason for possibly “saving the world” from China’s Big Tech spying (however hypocritical it is to do so given its own extensive espionage operations) because of the grand strategic economic impact that it could have on the “trade war” dimension of the New Cold War between these two Great Powers. The innuendo is that none of the tech companies producing their wares in China are safe from this menace, thus meaning that the only “responsible solution” is for them to either re-shore their operations back to the US or whatever their home country may be or re-offshore them to any other cheap-labor country besides China. In parallel, there’s also a hint that China’s rapid economic rise might have been the result of earlier undetected espionage operations over the decades.

That second-mentioned narrative suggests that there’s nothing inherent in China’s communist economic model that predisposed it to success, which furthers one of Trump’s main ideological points that socialism supposedly always fails wherever it’s attempted. In this instance, China’s unofficial adaptation of what mostly relates to “state capitalism” in the production sense but might have “socialist” applications in the socio-cultural one combined with its unprecedentedly massive espionage operations over the years to build this Great Power behemoth, implying that the country is actually just a “paper tiger” that’s much more vulnerable to the US’ tariffs and the multilateral solution that America would prefer in leading a global exodus from China than many observers might have initially thought. That’s a very powerful weapon in the US’ infowar armory and one that’s sure to be used repeatedly in the coming months as Washington seeks to force Beijing into agreeing to new trade terms.

Concluding Thoughts

It evidently took three years for the US to uncover, trace, and neutralize what Bloomberg claims was China’s unrivalled Big Tech espionage operation before it felt safe enough having its “deep state” “leak” the details to the public as part of its Hybrid War on China. The strategic purpose is to malign the reputation of the People’s Republic by making it seem like Chinese intelligence is clandestinely spying on every company in the country in order to steal their trade secrets and then use them to crush its foreign “partners” through the China 2025 strategy of high-tech development. Not only that, but anyone who believes that this narrative is plausible would also naturally suspect China of doing the same with the New Silk Road, thus dealing a double whammy to the economic underpinnings of the People’s Republic if it contributes to a large-scale exodus of factories out of the country and a slowing down of the Silk Road.

The overarching objective that the US wants to attain is to cripple the economic structures on which China depends – namely its role as the “world’s factory” at the heart of the global supply chain and its export-driven economic growth through the Silk Road – so as to facilitate the clinching of a new trade deal with it that works out heavily to America’s favor. This is seen by the Trump Administration as being the easiest and fastest way to offset the paradigm-changing geostrategic challenges of the New Cold War that threaten to otherwise eventually unravel its unipolar hegemony. It’s therefore imperative for the US to press home the talking points mentioned in this analysis in order to pressure some of the Big Tech companies to take the lead in this hoped-for exodus, potentially coercing them under the threat of forthcoming sanctions imposed upon Chinese-built high-tech wares for national security reasons.

Should it succeed with this strategy, and it’ll admittedly take time to play out even in any substantial part because of how deeply embedded the world’s tech industry is in the Chinese-centric global supply chain, then the US might even be able to put an end to the New Cold War a lot sooner and peacefully than anyone could have thought. That said, it would be resolved in America’s supreme favor in this scenario because of how swiftly it could bring China to its knees, though it needs to be mentioned that this is simply the US’ plan and doesn’t mean that it’ll actually happen. In any case, what’s important to focus on is the intent that the US’ “deep state” had in obviously playing a role in the release of Bloomberg’s report at this exact moment, and whichever way naysayers or supporters want to spin it, this undoubtedly had to do with winning the “trade war”.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

According to the Toronto Star, the reason why the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is in such a lackluster state is because of “politics trumping sound transit planning.” Wouldn’t it be great, the Globe and Mail asks us to wonder, “if we could get politics out of public transit?” Yes, answers the Torontoist, it really would be great: “Politics should be removed from transit planning.” So, follows up the activist group Scarborough Transit Action, “How do we get the politics out of transit planning?”

The sway of politics in transit policy is blamed for incentivizing vote-chasing behavior. Instead of relying on expertise and evidence to arrive at decisions about transit infrastructure, those who occupy Toronto City Hall and Queen’s Park base their decisions on the need to attract voters. This is why everyone from the Ford brothers to Kathleen Wynne and John Tory eventually got behind the $3.35-billion 1-stop Scarborough subway. Even the federal government agreed to help fund the wasteful project.

It’s no surprise, then, that transit activists are being won over to the idea that politics should be sidelined in transit policy discussions. Many have come to believe that if only transit experts were allowed to do their jobs without interference from vote-seeking politicians, an evidence-driven transit policy could be adopted and Toronto could build the kind of world-class transit system it deserves.

Evidence-Based Decision Making

Attractive as such an outlook may seem, transit activists should be wary of buying into it. The truth is we need more politics, not less, in order to address Toronto’s transit woes. That political elites can toy with transit policy for the purpose of vote-seeking is not an indication that the issue of public transit is burdened by an excess of politics. Rather, it shows that there is a lack of substantive political engagement with the issue, including a lack of an informed citizenry that has the opportunity and capacity to participate in transit policy discussions.

Far from being a hindrance to evidence-based decision making, politics is the best means to achieve it. A lively political sphere can bring together expert advice, data and scientific projections, as well as discussion on the needs and experiences of residents to arrive at informed transit policy decisions. This is, anyhow, what historical experience shows.

Consider, for instance, the case of 1970s Bologna, a city in northern Italy, where substantive political engagement helped to bring about radical reforms to public transit. Over the course of a two-year period, neighborhood “traffic committees” brought together residents, transit experts, and political representatives to design and implement reforms to the city’s public transit:

“In spring 1972, hardly an evening passed without debates in some assembly hall somewhere between workers and students, shop owners and housewives, on Bologna’s traffic future… Scientific surveys of the volume of traffic in the city and of the behavior of the people involved in traffic, measuring of noise levels and air pollution played an equal part in the process.”¹

The result was the creation of an urban environment far less dominated by the private automobile, meaning there was less congestion, less pollution, and fewer accidents. On streets where children played, car traffic was limited or banned completely. What’s more, a partially-free, wide-reaching public transit network was put into place.

In Bologna, it was openly recognized that “every traffic question has a political side too.”² Transit issues were seen as inherently political not only in the sense that they required active public engagement, but also because transit policy was seen as a terrain of political contestation. It was understood, for instance, that car manufacturers had an interest in derailing the creation of a well-functioning public transit system.

No Politics-Free Zone

In Toronto, those who say that politics has no place in transit planning seem to have dreamed away the contested nature of transit policy. If we’re serious about reforming transit in this city, we don’t have the luxury to engage in this sort of dreaming. There’s no politics-free zone where beautiful, picturesque, evidence-based transit policy roams and thrives.

To believe that there is means falling for a trap the political elite have set for us. According to them, there is such a politics-free zone: it’s called the market. The impoverishment of the political sphere in Toronto is such that even our politicians want to pretend that they’d rather not engage in politics. And selling off our transit assets and services to profiteering firms is, apparently, the most apolitical of all possible things.

Rather than trying to depoliticize transit policy, transit activists have to push for the opposite. We have to take up the task of building an active political sphere in which rational discussion can take place and evidence-based decision making can happen. This means that transit activists have to become organizers. We have to build institutions that allow regular people to engage with transit issues and develop their capacities. And, ultimately, we have to organize to win power in City Hall and Queen’s Park – because if the political elite would rather not engage in politics, we’ll have to do it instead.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

1. Max Jaggi, “Bologna’s Traffic Policy: ‘Free Fares Were Just the Beginning,’” in Free Public Transit: And Why We Don’t Pay To Ride Elevators, ed. Judith Dellheim and Jason Prince (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 2018), 32-33.

2. Mauro Formaglini, Bologna’s Traffic Counsellor, quoted in Ibid., 31.

All images in this article are from the author.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to sign an order extending the secrecy of the information stored in the security services’ archives from 70 to 90 years, including the Deir Yassin massacre carried out by Zionist gangs in the Nakba.

This came at the request of security agencies and other bodies to extend the confidentiality of this information to prevent the publication of part of the information during the current year.

US Ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison is a highly placed diplomat. Her words, whatever they may be, are official, which includes the ultimatums and threats that have become the language increasingly used by US diplomats to implement the policy of forceful persuasion or coercive diplomacy. Bellicose declarations are being used this way as a tool.

On Oct. 2, the ambassador proved it again. According to her statement, Washington is ready to use force against Russia. Actually, she presented an ultimatum — Moscow must stop the development of a missile that the US believes to be in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). If not, the American military will destroy it before the weapon becomes operational.

“At that point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a (Russian) missile that could hit any of our countries,” Hutchison stated at a news conference. “Counter measures (by the United States) would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty,” she added. “They are on notice.”

This is nothing other than a direct warning of a preemptive strike.

It is true that compliance with the INF Treaty is a controversial issue. Moscow has many times claimed that Washington was in violation, and that position has been substantiated. For instance, the Aegis Ashore system, which has been installed in Romania and is to be deployed in Poland, uses the Mk-41 launcher that is capable of firing intermediate-range Tomahawk missiles. This is a flagrant breach of the INF Treaty. The fact is undeniable. The US accuses Moscow of possessing and testing a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km (310-3,417 miles), but there has never been any proof to support this claim. Russia has consistently denied the charges. It says the missile in question — the 9M729 — is in compliance with the provisions of the treaty and has never been upgraded or tested for the prohibited range.

This is a reasonable assertion. After all, there is no way to prevent such tests from being detected and monitored by satellites. The US could raise the issue with the Special Verification Commission (SVC). Instead it threatens to start a war.

This is momentous, because the ambassador’s words were not a botched statement or an offhand comment, but in fact followed another “warning” made by a US official recently.

Speaking on Sept. 28 at an industry event in Pennsylvania hosted by the Consumer Energy Alliance, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke suggested that the US Navy could be used to impose a blockade to restrict Russia’s energy trade.

“The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade… to make sure that their energy does not go to market,” he said, revealing that this was an option.

The Interior Department has nothing to do with foreign policy, but Mr. Zinke is a high-ranking member of the administration.

Two bellicose statements made one after another and both are just short of a declaration of war! A blockade is a hostile act that would be countered with force, and the US is well aware of this. It is also well aware that Russia will defend itself. It’s important to note that no comments or explanations have come from the White House. This confirms the fact that what the officials have said reflects the administration’s position.

This brings to mind the fact that the Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act has passed the House of Representatives. The legislation includes the authority to inspect Chinese, Iranian, Syrian, and Russian ports. Among the latter are the ports of Nakhodka, Vanino, and Vladivostok. This is an openly hostile act and a blatant violation of international law. If the bill becomes law, it will likely  start a war with the US acting as the aggressor.

Trident Juncture, the largest training event held by NATO since 2002, kicks off on October 25 and will last until November 7, 2018. It will take place in close proximity to Russia’s borders. Russia’s Vostok-2018 exercise in September was the biggest seen there since the Cold War, but it was held in the Far East, far from NATO’s area of responsibility. It’s NATO, not Russia, who is escalating the already tense situation in Europe by holding such a large-scale exercise adjacent to Russia’s borders.

Russia is not the only country to be threatened with war. Attempts are being made to intimidate China as well. Tensions are running high in the South China Sea, where US and Chinese ships had an “unsafe” interaction with each other on Sept. 30. A collision was barely avoided. As a result, US Defense Secretary James Mattis had to suspend his visit to China when it was called off by Beijing. The security dialog between the two nations has stalled.

Perhaps the only thing left to do is to give up on having a normal relationship with the United States. Ambassador Hutchison’s statement is sending a clear message of: “forget about diplomacy, we’re back to the Stone Age,” with Washington leading the way. This is the new reality, so get used to it. Just shrug it off and try to live without the US, but be vigilant and ready to repel an attack that is very likely on the way.

It should be noted that Moscow has never threatened the US with military action. It has never deployed military forces in proximity to America’s shores. It did not start all those unending sanctions and trade wars. When exposing the US violations of international agreements, it has never claimed that the use of force was an option. It has tried hard to revive the dialog on arms control and to coordinate operations in Syria. But it has also had to issue warnings about consequences, in case it were provoked to respond to a hostile act. If the worst happens, we’ll all know who is to blame. Washington bears the responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of war.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image is from the author.

The Republic of Srpska, one of the two constituent self-governing regions of the dysfunctional state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will hold elections on October 7. The electoral process will take place under the long shadow of Western political manipulation designed to influence its outcome. On the one hand, there is the unsolved murder back in March of this year of a politically insignificant young man, causing widespread agitation with vague and, so far, totally unsubstantiated allegations of government complicity in the crime.

On the other, credible claims have been made that Republic of Srpska’s main opposition coalition alliance is being funded by the US and UK. Both developments, of course, are right out of Gene Sharp’s manual of political warfare by other means, known as “orange revolution”.

The mysterious demise of 21-year-old David Dragičević, a student with no apparent political links, which has been clumsily mishandled by investigative authorities, has been used for months as a convenient rallying cry by anti-government activists. As for the under-the-table financial and logistical support extended to opponents of Russia-friendly President Milorad Dodik, these are not just casual political claims disseminated for campaign purposes. 

Image on the right: President Milorad Dodik and President Vladimir Putin

USAID and other outfits tied to the US and British governments make no secret of the fact that they are injecting funds into the Republic of Srpska, particularly the media and political groups friendly to their agenda, in order to tip the balance in their favor and detach the Republic of Srpska from “malign Russian influence.” Rules of electoral non-interference boldly asserted for the benefit of hegemonic countries apparently do not apply to the behavior of the hegemons. As a result, the Republic of Srpska is in the throes of the second round of the color revolution which was originally attempted and failed four years ago at the time of the previous general elections in 2014. 

The threat is acute, not just to Dodik’s leadership but more importantly to the existence of the Republic of Srpska. Western minions are being funded and covertly supported because they have agreed to revise the 1995 Dayton agreement and to accept the concept of a unitary Bosnian state that would eliminate or eviscerate the Republic of Srpska. They have also agreed to drop Srpska’s veto to NATO membership for Bosnia. 

But while Dodik’s position on these key issues is sound, his rule has been undermined significantly by the corruption and incompetence of his government. These shortcomings have given the pro-NATO and anti-Russian opposition legitimate issues on which to focus and draw votes that they would otherwise not get based on the flawed fundamental policies that they are hired to advocate. Unfortunately, as has happened so many times in the past, the Serbian people do not have a real choice between good and bad options, but mostly between different shades of bad.

New and dynamic political forces, such as the “Successful Srpska” movement, for instance, which consists of young, patriotic professionals untainted by corruption or scandal, are short on resources and media coverage. It is not a level playing field. Fresh, honest faces are at a disadvantage compared to the corrupt political dinosaurs from the past who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric and, in some cases, also extremely bad policies.

Bosnia is a failed state. It was set up as an international protectorate on permanent artificial respiration and that is what it has been ever since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995, ending the civil war. President Dodik has hinted at organizing an independence referendum or joining Serbia if Kosovo’s illegal secession from Serbia receives international recognition. But the real question is what all three constituent communities in Bosnia, not just the Serbs, would do after Bosnia’s inevitable demise.

There is scant evidence that Dodik ever actually gave serious thought to secession. Rather, he has been using that card for political and electoral leverage, and with considerable effect on the domestic level. With regard to greater autonomy for the Republic of Srpska, to be precise, what he has urged was going back to the confederal arrangement set up in Dayton, which provides for an extremely limited central government and broad and virtually unfettered self-government for the Republic of Srpska as well as the other entity. It is not a question of pleading for a devolution of powers but of reinstituting the original system where most powers were vested in the constituent units, or entities as they are called, to begin with. It mirrored the status of the states in relation to the Federal Government under the original US Constitution, but that system was continuously diluted over the years by imperious decisions of dubious legality issued by EU’s viceroy in Bosnia, known as the High Representative. The single-minded thrust of those imposed decisions was to derogate the self-governing powers of the Republic of Srpska and centralize decision-making in the capital of Sarajevo. 

While there is no enthusiasm among Serbs for remaining part of the Bosnian state on any terms, for the moment the restoration of the loose confederal arrangement originally envisaged and agreed upon in Dayton would be regarded by them as satisfactory. Such a system would leave them with an ample degree of self-government in their own virtually independent state. They could largely ignore the unpalatable government in Sarajevo, and that government would have little effective control over them. Until the geopolitical balance of forces in the world changes sufficiently to allow more fundamental restructuring, such a system would be just fine with the Serbs. 

But, of course, it is a concept that clashes with the designs of NATO, EU, and the major players in the Western alliance. That is why they will have none of it and are staging another color revolution to install in the Republic of Srpska their own bought and paid for set of collaborators, committed to do their bidding.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Karganovic is President of the Srebrenica Historical Project. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspector general’s office released a report this week detailing the inhumane conditions prevailing at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Processing Center in California’s Mojave Desert. The report was the product of an unannounced visit by inspectors this past May, nearly one year after three deaths occurred within a three-month period at the facility.

The report outlined numerous horrors, including denial of medical and dental care, the use of punishing confinement prior to conclusive rulings on allegations of inmate infractions and the terrible revelation that nooses fashioned out of bed sheets hung in at least 15 of the 20 inspected cells.

Inspectors were met with lackadaisical responses from guards,

“When we [DHS] asked two contract guards who oversaw the housing units why they did not remove the bed sheets, they echoed it was not a high priority,” the report states.

The report noted that the guard escorting the inspectors through the facility had initially attempted to remove the nooses, but eventually stopped upon realizing how many there were.

At least seven suicide attempts were reported at the Adelanto Center from December 2016 to October 2017, but the number is believed to be far higher. Guards told investigators “the nooses are a daily issue and very widespread.”

In March 2017, Osmar Epifanio Gonzalez-Gadba, 32, a Nicaraguan, was found hanging from bed sheets in his cell and later died on life support. Gonzalez-Gadba was facing his second deportation and had previously been deported in April 2016 to Nicaragua, the poorest country in Central America.

Just days before Gonzalez-Gadba’s suicide, he reported having been sexually assaulted, but medical staff ignored his claim and never bothered examining him. At the ICE facility, inmates are subjected to daily physical, mental and sexual violence.

As of August 2017, there had been at least five attempted suicides at the facility in less than one year, according to 911 calls. One detainee told inspectors he witnessed “a few attempted suicides using the braided sheets by the vents. … The guards laugh at them and call them ‘suicide failures’ once they are back from medical.” The callousness exhibited by ICE’s contract employees mimics that of Border Patrol agents, who tend to treat immigrants with ruthless inhumanity.

Earlier this year, a report issued by humanitarian aid organizations found that border patrol agents had routinely destroyed at least 3,586 gallons of water and lifesaving aid along the border. Border patrol unofficially depends on the scorching heat of the Sonoran desert, which routinely exceeds 40°C (104°F), and often reaches 48°C (118°F), to whittle away groups of migrants whose survival often depends upon finding aid over the week-long journey.

Adelanto is owned and operated by the GEO Group, which runs close to 50 private prisons and detention centers around the country. Adelanto was a state prison for adult males for nearly two decades, before it was purchased by GEO Group in 2010.

Since then, tens of thousands of immigrant detainees have passed through the Adelanto facility. Some of them have been detained crossing the border, while others have lived in the US for years and decades before being swept up in ICE raids across the country.

The report also indicated that there were numerous deaths that could have been prevented with proper medical care. Inmates are often denied medical and dental treatment, waiting on lists for months and sometimes years with reports of tooth rot and loss due to lack of care.

One detainee reported multiple teeth falling out while waiting more than two years for cavities to be filled.

A November 2011 review found that “medical officials were not conducting detainee health appraisals within 14 days of arrival” and included revelations that nurses without proper certification and training were performing health assessments.

Many deaths, including that of detainee Fernando Dominguez Valdivia in March 2012, could have been prevented had it not been for “egregious errors” by medical staff according to ICE’s own Office of Detention Oversight. The Mexican national died of pneumonia, and was one of 141 people to die in ICE custody between 2003 and 2013, according to ICE.

A 2015 report by the same body concluded that the death of Raul Ernesto Morales-Ramos was due to a lack of timely and comprehensive medical care when the 44-year-old Salvadoran man died from intestinal cancer that went untreated.

Investigators also noted that detainees were improperly and prematurely placed in disciplinary segregation for alleged misbehavior, prior to any attempt to determine whether they had committed the alleged infractions.

“During our visit to the Adelanto Center, there were 14 detainees in disciplinary segregation. Through our file review, we found that the Adelanto Center inappropriately placed all 14 detainees in disciplinary segregation before they were found guilty of a prohibited act or rule violation.”

In addition, efforts were rarely made for translation or communication services for inmates to assist non-English speakers with an explanation of what was happening to them.

Investigators reported encountering “a blind, limited English proficient detainee in disciplinary segregation but found the center had no auxiliary aids or translated materials for the detainee to read or understand documents he was given. In addition, file reviews of the 14 detainees in disciplinary segregation…revealed that none of the segregation orders or information provided to detainees while in segregation was translated or otherwise communicated to ensure the detainee’s understanding.”

Daily atrocities against immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers are the status quo of Washington, DHS, the Border Patrol and ICE. The appalling revelations at Adelanto further underscore the reactionary Democratic Party-led political charade being conducted over the Kavanaugh hearings. The country is littered with private, for-profit prisons, supported by both parties. Where are the public hearings on the physical, sexual and mental abuses committed against immigrants, refugees and inmates alike across America’s vast prison system? No such abuses will ever make media headlines, as it does not serve the interests of the ruling elite as it carries out its reactionary in-fighting in the run-up to the November midterm elections.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: A cell at the Adelanto detention facility with a noose hanging in it (Credit: Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security)

Hypothetical post-Maduro planning has been discussed “at many levels”, Governor Rossello claimed. His comments follow Trump’s endorsement of a military coup d’état in Venezuela.

Puerto Rico’s governor joined regional voices backing the overthrow of the Venezuelan government Tuesday, following the visit of the fugitive ex-Mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, to the US protectorate.

Governor Ricardo Rossello called for the “elimination” of President Maduro, who was democratically re-elected in May for a second term with 67.7 percent of the vote in elections qualified as transparent, free, and fair.

“What should happen is that the dictatorship should be eliminated. We are defining what will happen afterwards, and what steps are to be taken,” stated Rossello in a press conference following the meeting with Ledezma.

He went on to claim that such “steps” have “already been discussed at many levels” and that they point towards “concrete results.”

As part of the announcements, Rossello invited Venezuela’s opposition leaders to a summit this October 20 and 21, to be held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which will look to establish a ‘Commission for the Reconstruction of Venezuela’, with Puerto Rico acting as “the headquarters” for “logistical support” to a “transition” government in Venezuela.

“We want to be ready for the day after, so that Venezuela counts on a government and an ordered and adequate transition. So that you know that you have friends across the world, Puerto Rico is going to be this connector for the coordination of all of this help,” Rossello added.

In front of press, the Governor signed an agreement which includes hypothetical land, maritime, and air supply corridors to Venezuela.

Rossello’s comments follow controversial declarations by US President Donald Trump, as well as Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Organisation of American States (OAS) Secretary-General Luis Almagro, and others, which have backed a coup d’état, military intervention, or other forced rupture of democracy in Venezuela.

The New York Times recently reported that Washington had held meetings with “rebel” Venezuelan military commanders to discuss the logistics of organising a coup d’état.

Puerto Rico continues to form part of the United States of America, and is the closest US-controlled territory to Venezuela, with only 1000 kilometers of sea separating the two. It was acquired by the US in the Paris Treaty ─ alongside Guam and the Philippines ─ which culminated the 1898 Spanish-US war. As such, the island is subject to US foreign and military policy, including housing numerous US military bases.

The recent agreement between the Puerto Rican government and Ledezma has already been communicated to Washington, as well as to the OAS, authorities informed.

For his part, Ledezma told press in San Juan that “a logistical operation will be launched from this Antillean Island.” He has previously gone on record calling for a foreign-led “intervention” into Venezuela.

From exile, the ex-Mayor and longtime anti-government leader heads the ‘I Am Venezuela’ (Soy Venezuela) movement, just one of the numerous fragmented anti-Chavista groups. His movement boycotted the recent presidential elections, and publicly opposed opposition groupings which decided to participate. Soy Venezuela, which Ledezma leads alongside outspoken government critic Maria Corina Machado, receives substantialcriticism from other anti-government forces who claim that, operating from Madrid, Paris, or Washington, it is disconnected from the local reality.

Ledezma is currently fleeing charges of conspiracy and criminal association in Venezuela for his role in the 2014 violent street protests which looked to oust the government through force. He was arrested in 2015, and his sentence was later commuted to house arrest, before dramatically fleeing authorities in November 2017. Since, he has toured Europe, the US, and Latin America rallying support for his efforts.

Caracas is yet to react to the latest statements of the Puerto Rican authorities, but President Maduro has offered firm backing to the independence struggle of the Puerto Rican people in the past. Recently released political prisoner and independence leader Oscar Lopez Rivera has been hosted by Caracas, with Maduro calling on Puerto Ricans to break the shackles of colonialism. Maduro’s position has put him at heads with that of Governor Rossello, who favours full US statehood.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Puerto Rican Governor Ricardo Rossello (C) alongside his State Secretary Roberto Vilella (L) and Venezuelan fugitive opposition leader Antonio Ledezma (R) signing an agreement in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (Antonio Ledezma Press)

 

The Trump regime’s DOJ falsely claimed seven alleged Russian intelligence officers hacked the OPCW and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

Assistant AG for national security John Demers announced the indictment “for malicious cyber activities against the United States and its allies” along with cyberattacking a Swiss lab and other charges.

US Attorney for Western Pennsylvania Scott Brady claimed

“(t)hey targeted Westinghouse, a nuclear power company based in Pittsburgh…that supplie(s) nuclear fuel to the Ukraine.”

Demers and Brady presented no evidence backing their accusations. None exists to reveal. Charges without it are baseless.

Fabricated accusations against Russian nationals include cyberattacks, fraud, theft of personal data, and money laundering, Demers adding:

“This indictment alleges a conspiracy to use computer hacking to obtain non-public, personal health information about athletes and others in the files of anti-doping agencies and sporting federations in multiple countries.”

Canada joined the latest Russia bashing chorus, falsely claiming “a series of malicious cyber operations by the Russian military” was exposed…part of a broader pattern of activities by the Russian government (occurring) outside the bounds of appropriate behavior, (demonstrating) a disregard for international law…undermining the rules-based international order.”

The Netherlands earlier expelled four Russian nationals for allegedly targeting the OPCW.

On Thursday, Dutch Defense Minister Ank Bijleveld claimed the alleged operation was foiled last April, further claiming the alleged suspects photographed areas around the OPCW in the Hague with intent to hack the organization’s wifi network for information pertaining to its Skripal incident investigation.

UK envoy to the Netherlands Peter Wilson claimed Moscow targeted Britain’s Foreign Office and Porton Down Defense and Science Laboratory.

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt accused Moscow of “reckless and indiscriminate” cyberattacks globally, suggesting more (unlawful) sanctions on the Kremlin are coming.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said

Western “spy mania is gaining momentum. Russia’s official commentary will follow soon.”

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the new accusations “(a) new wave of fake news, accusations and statements at different levels,” adding:

“(T)he British Foreign Office, which as it turns out now is specializing on security issues in the sphere of IT technologies, recently came up with a series of mind-boggling statements in their ‘highly-likely’ fashion on the involvement of the so-called GRU (Military Intelligence Service) in cyber attacks around the globe, even against WADA’s servers.”

“Without any analysis whatsoever we see that everything – the GRU, cyber spies, Kremlin hackers, WADA – has been poured and mixed into a single bottle of perfume, perhaps in a Nina Ricci bottle of perfume.”

“It is simply a hellish perfume mixture. Our British colleagues (sic) have a rich imagination that knows no boundaries.”

“I wish I can have a look at the one making all this up. They are simply the ‘Andersens’ (referring to Hans Christian Andersen fairy tales).

“Perhaps they judge by themselves and describe what they themselves do, but this is totally unbecoming of a country, which claims to be playing one of the leading roles in the world.”

Russia’s embassy in London called UK accusations “crude disinformation in the eyes of British and world public opinion,” adding:

“As usual…irresponsible (accusations fail) to be substantiated by any evidence and is another element in the anti-Russian crusade executed by the British government” – in cahoots with Trump regime hardliners.

This not by chance that it coincides with the meeting of NATO defense chiefs in Brussels and the announcement of the creation of cyber units in the armed forces of some Western countries.”

US-installed NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said the alliance “stand(s) in solidarity with the decision by the (US), Dutch and British governments to call out Russia on its blatant attempts to undermine international law and institutions” – despite no evidence suggesting it.

On October 3 and 4, NATO defense ministers met in Brussels. Russia was falsely accused of “continued instability, (posing) a serious risk to our security.”

Alleged threats facing alliance member are invented.

 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Prior to George W. Bush illegally rolling into Iraq based on a passel of lies, Bill Clinton oversaw Papa Bush’s medieval sanctions on the country. The sanctions were not intended to stop Saddam Hussein from building WMDs as we were told by The New York Times and The Washington Post.

They were put in place to starve the Iraqi people, deny basic medical supplies, and turn the country into a failed state. The process resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children.

Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, went on national television and said the murder of 500,000 Iraqi children was a price worth paying.

Now we have Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, demanding similar sanctions imposed on Iran.

On Wednesday, Pompeo said the US will terminate a treaty with Iran put into place in 1955, two years after the CIA engineered a coup ousting the democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosaddegh.

The long forgotten Treaty of Amity was brought up by the International Court of Justice when it ruled the US must lift sanctions that affect the import of humanitarian goods and products.

The Hague said in a preliminary decision the US must “remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from” sanctions that affect exports to Iran of medicine, medical devices, food, agricultural commodities and equipment necessary to ensure the safety of civil aviation, according to a report at Fox News.

The ICJ’s attempt to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in massive crimes against humanity, according to Pompeo, is “meritless” and he accused the international court of “attempting to interfere with the sovereign rights of the United States to take lawful actions necessary to protect our national security and abusing the ICJ for political and propaganda purposes.”

Trump and his top neocon adviser John Bolton insist the International Criminal Court has no authority.

“As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority,” Trump told the General Assembly at the United Nations. “The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.”

The US is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statue in 2000, but it wasn’t sent to the Senate to be ratified. The Bush administration sent a note informing the Secretary-General that it would not ratify the Rome Statute and did not recognize any obligation toward it. Like the Trump administration, the Bush administration openly demonstrated hostility toward the idea of holding nations accountable for war crimes.

The US backed up this defiance by passing the American Service Members Protection Act in 2002 ahead of the Iraq invasion. The law includes a provision to “use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.” Additionally, the act permits the president to order military action against the Court, which resulted in critics calling it the “Hague Invasion Act.”

However, the Bush administration and its neocons decided the ICC would be of use on a selective basis—against its official roster of enemies.

The former Bush UN ambassador (by recess appointment) and current top Trump administration neocon John Bolton declared war on the ICC after it announced it would investigate war crimes in Afghanistan. Bolton said the US will level sanctions against the international organization if it proceeds.

Trump and Bolton are clearing the decks in preparation of military action against Iran. They would like to see a return of brutal sanctions used for over a decade in Iraq.

Iran understands what this means: rapid deterioration of health, targeting water purification (a primary objective in Iraq), communications, agriculture, and medical infrastructure.

The US stated sanctions would remain in place even if Saddam Hussein decided to cooperate with the United Nations, thus demonstrating the sanctions and subsequent second invasion were not about WMDs and unfounded threats to America. The objective was to destroy Iraq, kill its people, and reduce the country to failed state status.

Neocon “creative destruction” is focused on making certain Iran does not pose a challenge to the hegemonic rule of the United States and Israel. Both Israel and the fossilized Sunni-Wahhabi emirates in the Persian Gulf avidly support destroying Iran and killing millions of its people.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

The 73^rd United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that kicked off last September 25 brought together the presidents, heads of governments and high-ranking representatives of the 193 UN member states. The General Assembly is the main deliberative and policymaking organ of the UN. It is the only UN body with equal representation, where each country has one vote.

However, it is the general debate that takes place during the first five days that draws most of the attention. That is when heads of state take turns to speak about their countries achievements and challenges, and make statements of commitments and political position. It is an occasion to tell the world where they stand on many issues. It is a great opportunity for all those who want to see and hear the speeches of the world leaders direct on the UN live stream videos.

There is usually a lot of anticipation.

One country out of the 193, with a few exceptions, elicits the expectations of all the others for its geopolitical implications and impact. It is the United States of America. The reactions range from diplomatic rebuttals or concurrence, to expressions of defiance.

In our region of the Americas, I would like to focus on the speeches of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and the president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro Moros. Understanding the position of the two countries today is key to understanding the future of Latin America.

We have seen a great deal of confrontation between the two countries over the years. Venezuela is trying to consolidate its socialist Bolivarian Revolution initiated by Hugo Chavez in 1999, and the U.S. is overtly attempting to stop it by provoking a regime change and establish a pro-neoliberal government that Venezuela openly and vehemently rejects.

Can we foresee any compromise in their position from their speeches at the UN?

How far or how close are the ideologies and relationships between the two countries as far as we can tell from what was said or not said at the UN? The speeches can be downloaded from the UN website. [1] [2]

Donald Trump’s speech

Donald Trump started out with what seems to be his trademark, praising himself for the best administration in the history of the United States. That caused laughs from the audience. Trump was caught off guard by the unexpected reaction and off-script said, “but it is OK”. I mention this only to highlight the contrast in the reactions from the audience to the two presidents. President Maduro received several rounds of applauses and a standing ovation at the end.

Having put that comment out of the way for the benefit of those who have not had the chance to watch the speakers on video, what did Trump really say?

Overall, in term of U.S. foreign policy, Trump dedicated almost a quarter of his speech to issues related to the Middle East. While praising the “advances” that the U.S. has made against terrorism, surprisingly he did not make a single reference to Russia’s important balancing contribution to de-escalating conflicts in the region.

On the other hand, only four short paragraphs were dedicated to Venezuela. I quote them in full:

“Currently, we are witnessing a human tragedy, as an example, in Venezuela. More than 2 million people have fled the anguish inflicted by the socialist Maduro regime and its Cuban sponsors. 

Not long ago, Venezuela was one of the richest countries on Earth. Today, socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.

Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay. Socialism’s thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression. All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone.

In that spirit, we ask the nations gathered here to join us in calling for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela. Today, we are announcing additional sanctions against the repressive regime, targeting Maduro’s inner circle and close advisors.”

That short reference to Venezuela understates the U.S. determination, the drive and the actions to delegitimize and destabilize the democratically elected and therefore legitimate Venezuelan government. It does so by using old Cold War language like “socialism”, “communism”, “misery” they bring “, and “repressive regime”. We will never know how Trump reconciles his contradiction apparent in another statement in his speech, “We believe that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors, and defend the interests of their people, they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity, and peace.” 

But that old language addressed at Venezuela may well be aimed at China as well with his call to “resist socialism” and its “thirst for power”. In fact, when Trump’s language is put together with other keywords in his speech like militarism (“Our military will soon be more powerful than it has ever been before”), sovereignty (“We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy”), protectionism (“The United States has just announced tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese-made goods for a total, so far, of $250 billion.), and patriotism (“We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”), we notice an affirmation of what political analyst Andrew Korybko called the “Trump World Order” and Trump’s “alternative model to what is now the Chinese-led Liberal-Globalist order.” [3] 

Those same words, though, together with a practice of intolerance for diversity, could also suggest a desperate transition and indicate that the “alternative model” is one of ultra-nationalism. We know from the history of the 20^th Century that ultra-nationalism was a disastrous social experiment for the world.

The U.S. new strategy includes a retreat from many of the international commitments such as the Commission on Human Rights and the International Criminal Court among others in the name of “patriotism” and for the sake of “sovereignty”. However, U.S. interventionism in the affairs of other sovereign states is to continue making more evident the U.S. doctrine of exceptionalism.

Nicolas Maduro’s speech

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro stated the intention of his presence at the UNGA in order “to bring the truth of a people that struggles”. And as such he spoke frankly, directly and forcefully. His words were explicit and compelling about Venezuela’s principles and the issues affecting Venezuela vis-à-vis the United States. His speech had a lot to say about the U.S. referring to Donald Trump five times by name, and no less than eleven times as the “President of the United States”.

Here are some of his quotes categorized by relevant topics. No further comments are necessary.

On U.S. withdrawing from international commitments showing exceptionalism 

“The President of the United States yesterday, from this podium, threatened the governments of the world to submit to his designs, to his orders and to collaborate with his policies in the United Nations system, or they [the U.S.] would act accordingly.”

On U.S. sanctions

“Yesterday the president of the United States, from this very podium, announced new sanctions, pretentious economic and financial sanctions against our country, precisely in the sanctuary of the law, in the sanctuary of international legality. Does the United Nations System know that unilateral sanctions, using domination, the favorable currency, and financial persecution, are considered illegal from the point of view of international law?”

On U.S. interventions

“Venezuela is the victim of permanent aggression in economic, political, diplomatic and media aspects by those who govern the United States of North America.”

“Economically, Venezuela has been subjected to a series of illegal, unilateral measures of economic persecution in the past two years.”

“Yesterday in this same place the President of the United States of America attacked, once again, the noble people of Venezuela, [with] its interventionist role, its pretentious role as judge, party and police of the world.” This was a reference to Trump’s announcement of new sanctions against Venezuela.

On U.S. – Venezuela discrepancies

“It is a historical conflict, we have said it many times to the world, our people know it very well, it is the conflict between the interventionist imperial doctrine, Monroe’s neo-colonialism, versus historical doctrine of rebellion for independence, dignity, justice, freedom, and republican [democratic] equality.” 

“Do we have differences, President Donald Trump? Of course we do. But it is people who have differences who must dialogue; it is those who have differences in this world that have to put on the table their goodwill and their ability to speak.” 

On Venezuela’s worldview

“Venezuela is a country that advocates and commits itself to the construction of a multipolar, pluripolar and multicentric world. There isn’t just one economic model. We cannot allow a unique economic model, a single ideology to be imposed.”

“We believe in a different world, our generation saw the so-called bipolar, two-bloc world go by, what was then called Cold War, which some seem to want to bring back in their attacks to China, to Russia and to humble countries like Venezuela. To initiate a struggle and a fight against countries like Russia and China is a contradiction against what must be a human international policy that recognizes the emergence of new poles of power and the need to build a multipolar world.”

On Venezuela today

“Today, Venezuela is stronger than ever, we have learned how to resist, we are standing and ready to continue advancing in the construction of a social model of our own, that of the socialist revolution of the 21st century, we say it to the world.”

On dialogue

“I am willing to speak with an open agenda on all the issues that the government of the United States wants to speak, with humility, with frankness, with sincerity.”

“Despite the immense historical differences, despite the immense ideological differences, despite the immense social differences, … I would be willing to shake the hand of the President of the United States and to sit down to talk about bilateral and regional issues.”

Conclusion

Despite the awareness that back channel conversations can take place between conflicting countries, this possibility is quite remote first and foremost because this is a one-way “conflict”.  It is the U.S. that is interfering with Venezuela and not the other way around. U.S. sanctions and military threats are unilateral and the Venezuelan government has responded only in the form of official statements of rejection and denunciation without threats nor retaliation.

Having said that, after a long-standing confrontation, imposed sanctions and threats against the DPRK, we never imagined Trump thanking Chairman Kim Jong Un, “for his courage and for the steps he has taken” – around withholding development of nuclear weapons – as he did at the UNGA. We can only hope.

Trump did not refer extensively to Venezuela in his speech but his message was precise and unequivocal. I paraphrase: we will continue imposing sanctions and socialism is very-very bad, all nations should oppose it. He did not utter any military threats at the UNGA. Even then, several heads of State rejected the notion of interventions, military or otherwise.

What Trump did not say about Venezuela, he did say about Syria and “the corrupt dictatorship in Iran” and the “chaos, death, and destruction” its leaders have caused together with “mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond.” Strong words.

Perhaps Trump’s real message was his geopolitical view of the world and the U.S. position in it. He put it very concisely and explicitly in one sentence, “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.” It was a reference to pulling out from obligations of international responsibilities and commitments, at the same time that it does not rule out U.S. offshore intrusion in order to disrupt any perceived threat to its power and interests. China and Russia are seen as such a threat.

Aside from the political ideology, it is possibly in the geopolitical view of the world where lies the greatest divide between the U.S. and Venezuela.

The U.S. is increasingly defending itself from a developing multi polar world with China, Russia, Iran, and other nations – including Venezuela. The Trump administration seems to have adopted a daring, and possibly dangerous, redesign of U.S. geopolitical strategy in order to avoid being pulled in by the sheer force of attraction, and consequently lose the unipolar exclusive power that has been its historically persistent strategic drive. 

Beyond the obvious defense of independence and rejection of the economic war on Venezuela, Maduro has clearly stated his belief in a multipolar world that recognizes and includes China and Russia. Venezuela is wholeheartedly accepting the inevitable reality and is embracing the opportunities that it brings.

Those worldviews are too far apart to even conceive a point of contact. But Venezuela, with the international law on its side, continues to call for a dialogue with the opposition, the U.S. and the international community.

I think it was unfortunate that Trump did not take the occasion of the UNGA to meet face-to-face with Maduro. Without a dialogue there cannot be any possibility of compromise in their positions. And without compromise, continued divisions in Latin America, potentially escalating to more serious confrontations, can devastate the whole region.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and writer based in Vancouver, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” http://www.cubasolidarityincanada.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] https://gadebate.un.org/en/73/united-states-america 

[2] https://gadebate.un.org/en/73/venezuela-bolivarian-republic 

[3] https://eurasiafuture.com/2018/09/26/the-kraken-killed-the-liberal-globalist-new-world-order-at-the-un/

[“A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an animal feeding operation (AFO)—a farm in which animals are raised in confinement—that has over 1000 “animal units” confined for over 45 days a year.”]

***

Hurricane Florence’s torrential rains pelted areas of North Carolina that are home to more than 1,500 industrial animal operations with more than 1,000 nearby animal waste storage cesspools. These operations have the potential to annually produce as much as four billion gallons of wet swine waste and 400,000 tons of dry poultry waste, according to an exclusive analysis by EWG and Waterkeeper Alliance.

The organizations overlaid locations of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, with government rainfall estimates to produce an interactive map that details Florence’s potential impact on vulnerable operations in the state. Clicking and zooming in on a location shows the estimated amount of rain each CAFO received from Sept. 14, when Florence made landfall, through Sept. 16, and the potential amount of waste produced or stored at each site.

View the interactive map here.

The groups calculated the potential waste stored at each site by using North Carolina permit data, the Agricultural Census from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and manure-production-rate data from the North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. A link to the methodology is here.

Among our findings:

• There are 926 concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, housing more than 3.8 million hogs and 578 poultry CAFOs holding an estimated 35 million fowl in areas where the National Weather Service said flooding was “occurring or imminent” after Florence. Livestock at those 1,504 concentrated animal feeding operations are capable of producing four billion gallons of wet waste and more than 400,000 tons of dry poultry waste each year. More than a third of those sites received an estimated 15 to 19 inches of rain, and more than one-fourth saw more than 20 inches.
• There are 123 industrial hog operations and 40 industrial poultry operations in or within 500 feet of the 100-year floodplain that received at least 15 inches of rain. Livestock at those 163 sites are capable of producing more than 395 million gallons of liquid waste and more than 27,000 tons of dry waste a year.
• Federal standards require waste pits in North Carolina to be designed to withstand a so-called 24-hour/25-year rain event without releasing manure. In areas where the National Weather Service said flooding was occurring or imminent, more than 1,000 waste pits received more rain than the 24-hour/25-year rain event defined for that location. Of those, an estimated 35 pits are in the 100-year floodplain and received over 15 inches of rain. Those pits alone are capable of holding more than 129 million gallons of animal waste.
• The map below shows colored bands of estimated rainfall amounts in North Carolina’s coastal plain from Sept. 14-16. The dark diagonal lines show the zones of rainfall expected during a 24-hour/25-year rain event. In all of the zones except for the one with the lowest expected rainfall (in blue), the total estimated rainfall was well in excess of what the waste pits were designed to withstand.

Source: EWG, from National Weather Service data

“It’s just a matter of time until another massive rain event happens again in the floodplain,” said Soren Rundquist, EWG’s director of spatial analysis. “How many scenes of swamped animal barns and breached manure pits do state leaders and the factory farm industry need to see before they realize producing and storing billions of pounds of animal waste in flood-prone areas is disastrously bad policy?”

“Waste mismanagement at industrial animal agriculture operations threatens public health and environmental quality even under sunny skies,” said Will Hendrick, staff attorney and manager of the Pure Farms, Pure Waters campaign at Waterkeeper Alliance. “That threat is disproportionately borne by communities of color or low wealth and it is exacerbated, given the concentration of production in the coastal plain, by increasingly frequent and severe storms like Hurricanes Matthew and Florence.”

EWG and Waterkeeper Alliance will continue our analysis of Hurricane Florence’s impact on CAFOs in North Carolina’s coastal plain.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from EWG.

European Markets and Union on alert, opposition on the attack, a reminder about the Constitution by the President of the Republic, all this because the government-planned financial manoeuvre, which has already been announced, would lead to a deficit of about 27 billion Euros. On the other hand, absolute silence from the government and the opposition about the fact that every year, Italy spends a similar sum for its military budget.

Military spending for 2018 is approximately 25 billion Euros, to which must be added other posts of a military character, bringing the total to more than 27 billion. This means more than 70 million Euros per day, which is on the increase because Italy has promised NATO to bring it up to about 100 million per day.

Why is no-one talking about the growing expenditure of public money for weapons, armed forces and military interventions? Because that would entail opposing the United States, the “privileged ally” (read ‘dominant’), which is demanding a continual increase of this spending.

US spending for its armed forces in fiscal year 2019 (which began on 1 October 2018) exceeds 700 billion dollars, to which must be added other military costs, including almost 200 billion for retired military personnel. The total military spending of the United States has thus grown to more than 1,000 billion dollars annually, a quarter of all federal expenditure. An increasing investment in war which permits the United States (according to the Pentagon’s official motivation) to “remain the pre-eminent military power in the world, to ensure that the balance of power stays in our favour, and to advance an international order which favours our prosperity to the maximum”.

Source: PandoraTV

But in fiscal year 2019, military spending will create a deficit of almost 1,000 billion dollars in the federal budget. Later, this will cause an increase of the US government’s debt, rising to about 21,500 billion dollars. This will be absorbed in the interior by cuts in social spending, and, in the exterior, by printing more dollars, used as the principal currency of world monetary reserves and the quotations for prime materials.

However, nobody benefits from increased military spending. We are dealing here with the giants of the war industries. Of the ten largest world producers of weaponry, six are US companies – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon Company, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and L3 Technologies. They are followed by the British company BAE Systems, the French/Dutch company Airbus, the Italian company Leonardo (ex-Finmeccanica), now running ninth, and the French company Thales.

These are not simply huge factories which produce weapons. Together, they form a military-industrial complex, closely integrated with institutions and parties, with deep and wide-reaching ramifications. This creates a true arms establishment, whose profits and powers increase as international tension and war increase.

Leonardo, which earned 85 % of its profits from arms sales, is integrated with the US military-industrial complex – it supplies products and services not only to the armed forces and agencies of the Pentagon, but also to US intelligences agencies, while in Italy it manages the Cameri site for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighters.

In September, Leonardo was chosen by the Pentagon, with Boeing as its primary contract employee, to supply the US Air Force with AW139 attack helicopters. In August, Fincantieri (controlled by the financial company of the Minister of the Economy and Finance) and Lockheed Martin, delivered two more littoral combat ships to the US Navy.

We need to keep all that in mind when we ask ourselves why, in Italian parliamentary organisations and institutions, there is such an overwhelming multi-partisan consensus – not for cutting into the budget, but for increasing military spending.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Translated by Pete Kimberley

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

This October 3, 2016 article is of relevance to the current debate on fake news

A controversial foreign PR firm known for representing unsavory characters was paid millions by the Pentagon to create fake terrorist videos.

The Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top secret propaganda program in Iraq, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal.

Bell Pottinger’s output included short TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos which could be used to track the people who watched them, according to a former employee.

The agency’s staff worked alongside high-ranking U.S. military officers in their Baghdad Camp Victory headquarters as the insurgency raged outside.

Bell Pottinger’s former chairman Lord Tim Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which has worked with the Bureau on this story, that his firm had worked on a “covert” military operation “covered by various secrecy documents.”

Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Council on its work in Iraq, he said.

Bell, one of Britain’s most successful public relations executives, is credited with honing Margaret Thatcher’s steely image and helping the Conservative party win three elections. The agency he co-founded has had a roster of clients including repressive regimes and Asma al-Assad, the wife of the Syrian president.

In the first media interview any Bell Pottinger employee has given about the work for the U.S. military in Iraq, video editor Martin Wells told the Bureau his time in Camp Victory was “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing.”

The firm’s output was signed off by former General David Petraeus – then commander of the coalition forces in Iraq – and on occasion by the White House, he said.

Bell Pottinger produced reams of material for the Pentagon, some of it going far beyond standard communications work.

The Bureau traced the firm’s Iraq work through US army contracting censuses, reports by the Defense Department’s Inspector General and federal procurement transaction records, as well as Bell Pottinger’s corporate filings and specialist publications on military propaganda. We interviewed half a dozen former officials and contractors involved in information operations in Iraq.

There were three types of media operations commonly used in Iraq at the time, said a military contractor familiar with Bell Pottinger’s work there.

“White is attributed, it says who produced it on the label,” the contractor said. “Grey is unattributed and black is falsely attributed. These types of black ops, used for tracking who is watching a certain thing, were a pretty standard part of the industry toolkit.”

Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was a huge media operation which cost over a hundred million dollars a year on average. A document unearthed by the Bureau shows the company was employing almost 300 British and Iraqi staff at one point.

The London-based PR agency was brought into Iraq soon after the U.S. invasion. In March 2004 it was tasked by the country’s temporary administration with the “promotion of democratic elections” -a “high-profile activity” which it trumpeted in its annual report.

The firm soon switched to less high-profile activities, however. The Bureau has identified transactions worth $540 million between the Pentagon and Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations on a series of contracts issued from May 2007 to December 2011. A similar contract at around the same annual rate-$120 million-was in force in 2006, we have been told.

The bulk of the money was for costs such as production and distribution, Lord Bell told the Sunday Times, but the firm would have made around £15m a year in fees.

Martin Wells, the ex-employee, told the Bureau he had no idea what he was getting into when he was interviewed for the Bell Pottinger job in May 2006.

He had been working as a freelance video editor and got a call from his agency suggesting he go to London for an interview for a potential new gig. “You’ll be doing new stuff that’ll be coming out of the Middle East,” he was told.

“I thought ‘That sounds interesting’,” Wells recalled. “So I go along and go into this building, get escorted up to the sixth floor in a lift, come out and there’s guards up there. I thought what on earth is going on here? And it turns out it was a Navy post, basically. So from what I could work out it was a media intelligence gathering unit.”

After a brief chat Wells asked when he would find out about the job, and was surprised by the response.

“You’ve already got it,” he was told. “We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

He would be flying out on Monday, Wells was told. It was Friday afternoon. He asked where he would be going and got a surprising answer: Baghdad.

“So I literally had 48 hours to gather everything I needed to live in a desert,” Wells said.

Days later, Wells’s plane executed a corkscrew landing to avoid insurgent fire at Baghdad airport. He assumed he would be taken to somewhere in the Green Zone, from which coalition officials were administering Iraq. Instead he found himself in Camp Victory, a military base.

It turned out that the British PR firm which had hired him was working at the heart of a U.S. military intelligence operation.

A tide of violence was engulfing the Iraqi capital as Wells began his contract. The same month he arrived there were five suicide bomb attacks in the city, including one a suicide car bomb attack near Camp Victory which killed 14 people and wounded six others.

Describing his first impressions, Wells said he was struck by a working environment very unlike what he was used to. “It was a very secure building,” he recalled, with “signs outside saying ‘Do not come in, it’s a classified area, if you’re not cleared, you can’t come in.'”

Inside were two or three rooms with lots of desks in, said Wells, with one section for Bell Pottinger staff and the other for the US military.

“I made the mistake of walking into one of the [U.S. military] areas, and having a very stern American military guy basically drag me out saying you are not allowed in here under any circumstances, this is highly classified, get out-whilst his hand was on his gun, which was a nice introduction,” said Wells.

It soon became apparent he would be doing much more than just editing news footage.

The work consisted of three types of products. The first was television commercials portraying al Qaeda in a negative light. The second was news items which were made to look as if they had been “created by Arabic TV”, Wells said. Bell Pottinger would send teams out to film low-definition video of al Qaeda bombings and then edit it like a piece of news footage. It would be voiced in Arabic and distributed to TV stations across the region, according to Wells.

The American origins of the news items were sometimes kept hidden. Revelations in 2005 that PR contractor the Lincoln Group had helped the Pentagon place articles in Iraqi newspapers, sometimes presented as unbiased news, led to a Department of Defense investigation.

The third and most sensitive program described by Wells was the production of fake al Qaeda propaganda films. He told the Bureau how the videos were made. He was given precise instructions: “We need to make this style of video and we’ve got to use al Qaeda’s footage,” he was told. “We need it to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in this file format, and we need to encode it in this manner.”

US marines would take the CDs on patrol and drop them in the chaos when they raided targets. Wells said: “If they’re raiding a house and they’re going to make a mess of it looking for stuff anyway, they’d just drop an odd CD there.”

The CDs were set up to use Real Player, a popular media streaming application which connects to the internet to run. Wells explained how the team embedded a code into the CDs which linked to a Google Analytics account, giving a list of IP addresses where the CDs had been played.

The tracking account had a very restricted circulation list, according to Wells: the data went to him, a senior member of the Bell Pottinger management team, and one of the U.S. military commanders.

Wells explained their intelligence value. “If one is looked at in the middle of Baghdad…you know there’s a hit there,” he said. “If one, 48 hours or a week later shows up in another part of the world, then that’s the more interesting one, and that’s what they’re looking for more, because that gives you a trail.”

The CDs turned up in some interesting places, Wells recalled, including Iran, Syria, and even America.

“I would do a print-out for the day and, if anything interesting popped up, hand it over to the bosses and then it would be dealt with from there,” he said.

The Pentagon confirmed that Bell Pottinger did work for them as a contractor in Iraq under the Information Operations Task Force (IOTF), producing some material that was openly sourced to coalition forces, and some which was not. They insisted that all material put out by IOTF was “truthful”.

IOTF was not the only mission Bell Pottinger worked on however. Wells said some Bell Pottinger work was carried out under the Joint Psychological Operations Task Force (JPOTF), which a US defense official confirmed.

The official said he could not comment in detail on JPOTF activities, adding “We do not discuss intelligence gathering methods for operations past and present.”

Lord Bell, who stood down as chairman of Bell Pottinger earlier this year, told the Sunday Times that the deployment of tracking devices described by Wells was “perfectly possible”, but he was personally unaware of it.

Bell Pottinger’s output was signed off by the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. Wells recalled: “We’d get the two colonels in to look at the things we’d done that day, they’d be fine with it, it would then go to General Petraeus”.

Some of the projects went even higher up the chain of command. “If [Petraeus] couldn’t sign off on it, it would go on up the line to the White House, and it was signed off up there, and the answer would come back down the line’.

Petraeus went on to become director of the CIA in 2011 before resigning in the wake of an affair with a journalist.

The awarding of such a large contract to a British company created resentment among the American communications firms jostling for Iraq work, according to a former employee of one of Bell Pottinger’s rivals.

“Nobody could work out how a British company could get hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. funding when there were equally capable U.S. companies who could have done it,” said Andrew Garfield, an ex-employee of the Lincoln Group who is now a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “The American companies were pissed.”

Ian Tunnicliffe, a former British soldier, was the head of a three person panel from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)-the transitional government in Iraq following the 2003 invasion-which awarded Bell Pottinger their 2004 contract to promote democratic elections.

According to Tunnicliffe, the contract, which totaled $5.8m, was awarded after the CPA realized its own in-house efforts to make people aware of the transitional legal framework ahead of elections were not working.

“We held a relatively hasty but still competitive bid for communications companies to come in,” recalls Tunnicliffe.

Tunnicliffe said that Bell Pottinger’s consortium was one of three bidders for the contract, and simply put in a more convincing proposal than their rivals.

Iraq was a lucrative opportunity for many communications firms. The Bureau has discovered that between 2006 and 2008 more than 40 companies were being paid for services such as TV and radio placement, video production, billboards, advertising and opinion polls. These included US companies like Lincoln Group, Leonie Industries and SOS International as well as Iraq-based firms such as Cradle of New Civilization Media, Babylon Media and Iraqi Dream.

But the largest sums the Bureau was able to trace went to Bell Pottinger.

According to Glen Segell, who worked in an information operations task force in Iraq in 2006, contractors were used partly because the military didn’t have the in-house expertise, and partly because they were operating in a legal “grey area”.

In his 2011 article Covert Intelligence Provision in Iraq, Segell notes that U.S. law prevented the government from using propaganda on the domestic population of the U.S. In a globalized media environment, the Iraq operations could theoretically have been seen back home, therefore “it was prudent legally for the military not to undertake all the…activities,” Segell wrote.

Segell maintains that information operations programs did make a difference on the ground in Iraq. Some experts question this however.

A 2015 study by the Rand Corporation, a military think tank, concluded that “generating assessments of efforts to inform, influence, and persuade has proven to be challenging across the government and DoD.”

Bell Pottinger’s operations on behalf of the U.S. government stopped in 2011 as American troops withdrew from Iraq.

Bell Pottinger changed ownership after a management buyout in 2012 and its current structure has no connections with the unit Wells worked for, which closed in 2011. It is understood the key principals who were involved in this unit deny any involvement with tracking software as described by Wells.

Wells left Iraq after less than two years, having had enough of the stress of working in a war zone and having to watch graphic videos of atrocities day after day.

Looking back at his time creating propaganda for the US military, Wells is ambivalent. The aim of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was to highlight al Qaeda’s senseless violence, he said-publicity which at the time he thought must be doing some good. “But then, somewhere in my conscience I wondered whether this was the right thing to do,” he added.

Lord Bell told the Sunday Times he was “proud” of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq. “We did a lot to help resolve the situation,” he said. “Not enough. We did not stop the mess which emerged, but it was part of the American propaganda machinery.”

Whether the material achieved its goals, no one would ever really know, said Wells. “I mean if you look at the situation now, it wouldn’t appear to have worked. But at the time, who knows, if it saved one life it [was] a good thing to do.”

For those of us who watched with innocence, then passion, then consternation, the results of the 1991 senate hearing for supreme court nominee Clarence Thomas; for those who championed film stars, then ordinary women daring, finally, to call out Harvey Weinstein and a stream of male predators; for those who watched with confidence the rise of #MeToo; for those of us who wrote poems and songs and opinions hailing a real cultural shift in female-male dynamics; for those of us still unable to admit being sexually abused; for those of us who finally confessed some discomforts to our lovers; for those of us who overcame difficulties to tell our sons and our daughters about those endemic secrets; for those of us who believe openness and dialogue are healthy and transformative — we now fear we were misguided.

The misogynist and white culture of privilege in the U.S.A. was again evident during the recent senate hearing to evaluate Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The end of Friday’s senate hearing suggests accommodation was reached by committee members. But to do what — demonstrate a real solution was found to test the veracity of the parties involved and affirm that senate confirmation is a noble process? The delay (to call in the FBI) may allow more time for Americans to debate and for our infotainment industry to distract us from the urgent, decisive elections just weeks away. (This while a narrowly circumscribed FBI investigation is conducted in secret.)

Committee senators have cast their vote; the number in Kavanaugh’s (and Trump’s) favor suggests the nominee’s success. Whether confirmation would drive outraged citizens (Democrats and others) on Election Day to determinedly ouster stalwart Republican office-holders remains to be seen. If Kavanaugh is rejected, there will be a lot of satisfied women and men on one side, but maybe many more recalcitrants on the other. Again, how this will manifest on November 6^th is uncertain.

Simply from the way these hearings evolved – a spectacle of unmatched raw politicizing, as Lorraine Ali writes — I wonder if the process we have witnessed actually reinforces how deeply misogynist and white male-privileged American culture is. From the arrival of nominee-Dad with teenage daughter, his awesome welcome into the hearing, adorned by senate sycophants, proceeding through rumors, press reports, to a face-off– testimonies by the ‘injured woman’ and the defending nominee—wrapped up with theatrical declarations by the candidate’s partisans and a phony compromise to bring the curtain down on Friday’s performance, America remains far, far from gender equity and open democratic processes.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s webpage: www.radiotahrir.org.

Aziz is a veteran anthropologist and radio journalist, also author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University, Nepal, and available through Barnes and Noble in the USA. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

May 10, 1984 . The Hague, Netherlands—In a historic ruling against the United States, the World Court (International Court of Justice) ordered the Reagan administration to stop mining Nicaraguan harbors and giving military aid to anti-Sandinista rebels. 

‘The United States of America should immediately cease and refrain from any action restricting, blocking or endangering access to or from Nicaraguan ports, and in particular, the laying of mines,’” Judge President Taslim Olawale Elias of Nigeria in a ruling accepted by all the ICJ’s 15 judges, May 10, 1984.

“The International Court of Justice ruled today that the Reagan Administration had broken international law and violated Nicaraguan sovereignty by aiding the anti-Government rebels.  The Court, the judicial arm of the United Nations, ordered Washington to halt the ‘arming and training’ of the insurgents and to pay Nicaragua for damages caused by military attacks, some of which it said had been carried out by the United States itself.” Paul Lewis, Special to The New York Times, June 28, 1986

***

The Presidency of the United Nations Security Council is held on a rotating basis, permitting each of the 15 members of the Security Council to hold the Presidency, in alphabetical order, for one month.

September 2018 was the turn of the United States to hold the Presidency, and this was presided over by US Ambassador Nikki Haley.(image right)

On September 5, Ambassador Haley called a meeting on Nicaragua, and this meeting was fiercely opposed by numerous members of the Security Council, who stated that Nicaragua is not a threat to international peace and security, which is the mandate of the Security Council, and objected that the US was using the meeting in an attempt to manipulate the Security Council to gain authorization for intervention in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, as the US had done with Libya.

Within the historical context of US interventions in Nicaragua, this was a major concern and fear expressed by several delegations, quoted below, and I am providing the historic judgements of the World Court and the International Court of Justice, pronounced decades ago, which ruled that the United States was in violation of international law in their prior illegal interventions in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.

Reminiscent of the crocodile tears shed by Libyan diplomats in the Security Council in 2011, tearfully pleading with the Security Council to intervene in the internal affairs of Libya, a sovereign member of the United Nations, a military intervention which led to the complete destruction of the Libyan state, and the extrajudicial murder of Gaddafi ;  and consistent with the United States’ chronic practice of manipulating the UN Security Council to compel support for its geopolitical agenda, the US Ambassador on September  5  trotted out Mr. Gonzalo Koncke of the OAS, and Mr. Felix Maradiaga, Nicaraguan civil society “leader” to shed crocodile tears pleading with the Security Council for intervention in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, in an almost identical performance to that of the Libyan diplomats in 2011, which led to universally recognized disaster, including the subsequent murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and torching of the US Embassy in Tripoli.

Russian Ambassador Nebenzia  (image above left) stated: 

“We have major concerns about the invited briefers.  ..Does the Council’s mandate really include putting pressure on the authorities of a sovereign State to force it to make changes, whatever they may be, and thereby conniving with anti-Government forces?  After today’s discussion, the polarization in Nicaragua can only worsen.  It is difficult not to believe that that is what the ringleaders of today’s meeting had in mind…I want to say it once again.  It is obvious to us that the issue of Nicaragua has no place on the Security Council’s agenda.  The Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the domestic political situation in Nicaragua does not pose those kinds of threats.  Rather, it is a vivid, sad example of destructive outside interference….and since the American presidency of the Council has used a regional rationale in order to shovel the Nicaraguan issue onto the Security Council’s agenda, we should not fail to mention some examples of Washington’s interference in the internal affairs of other Latin American states as well….The peoples of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific also have some things to say about this issue.  Against the backdrop of this dictatorial policy, which you do not even bother to disguise, Madam President, your accusations about third countries’ mythical interference in American domestic political life with the supposed goal of undermining America’s great democracy look particularly clumsy.”

Seared into the historic memory of the Latin American peoples is the tragic and terrifying pattern of the United States, throughout the 1950’s to the 1990’s, methodically and scientifically destabilizing the economies of Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, etc., etc.,  (countries who had democratically elected Presidents committed to using their countries’ resources for the benefit of their own people,) and ultimately fomenting military coups which installed US backed dictatorships which institutionalized torture, terror and every conceivable form of human rights abuses.   These bitter and horrifying memories of what, collectively, amounts to the genocide of every progressive element in the populations of the Latin American countries are ineradicable memories which cannot be consigned to historic archives, but are virulent to this very day.

Bolivia’s Ambassador  Mr. Llorentty Soliz stated, with his classic eloquence: 

“Interventionism, interference and the financing of opposition groups constitute the big elephant in the room that is not discussed in this Chamber.  The real interest of the United States is not the defence of democracy;  were it so it would not employ double standards or give speeches about defending democracy while at the same time financing coups d’etat and destabilizing democratically elected Governments.  The real interest is not in defending human rights;  otherwise States claiming to do so would sign all the international agreements under our system on defending and promoting human rights.  If human rights were the real reason, the United States would not have abandoned the Human Rights Council, one of the greatest achievements of our system.  If it were really about human rights, torture would not be promoted and asylum seekers would not be put in jail, giving rise to the inhumane separation of parents from their children.  The recent history of interventionism is a long one.  We need only consider what happened in regions such as the Middle East.  As we have said on many occasions, in Libya, Syria and in Iraq these policies have created the worst situations in this century.  What is the true interest?  The true interest is to promote situations of instability and to exploit them to change regimes and to control natural resources.  That is the key objective.”

Truth and fact are incontestable in this context, and the hypocrisy and double standards denounced by Ambassador Nebenzia and Ambassador Llorenty Soliz and by Mr. Suarez Moreno of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (among others) are themes repeatedly highlighted throughout the 72 United General Assembly which followed this Security Council meeting on Nicaragua.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Is Trump being held captive by political operatives within his Cabinet – notably Pompeo, Bolton and Haley on geopolitical issues?  They’re  hostile to world peace,  democratic values, and respect for international law. 

On Wednesday, John Bolton announced the Trump regime’s withdrawal from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) optional protocol.

The 1961 international treaty defines the legal way diplomatic relations between countries are supposed to be conducted.

It codifies basic rules of diplomatic law, enabling diplomatic missions to operate without fear of coercion or harassment where they’re located.

According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), its success depends on observance of international law.

Its optional protocol on settling international disputes permits  ICJ adjudication when petitioned by a VCDR member state.

It’s charged with settling disputes between member states, along with providing advisory opinions when asked.

Chapter XIV of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to enforce its rulings – compromised by veto power of the five permanent members – America, Britain, China, France, and Russia.

On Wednesday, John Bolton issued a statement, saying

Trump  “decided that the United States will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.”

“This is in connection with a case brought by” the Palestinian Authority (PA) – petitioning the ICJ to compel Washington to shut its Jerusalem embassy, adding its move from Tel Aviv violated the Vienna Convention, requiring embassies to be located in host countries.

Jerusalem is a UN-established international city – Resolution 181, 1947, designating the city a “separate entity” under a world body protectorate.

Unanimously passed Security Council Resolution 476 (June 1980) declared “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant (Fourth Geneva) violation.”

Israel claiming the city, “complete and united, as (its) capital” has no legal standing. East Jerusalem is illegally occupied territory. So is historic Palestine.

Security Council Resolution 478 (1980) “call(ed) upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

It “demand(ed) that all states comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions.”

Security Council Resolution 2334 (December 2016, adopted 14 – 0 with the US abstaining) said settlements have “no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.”

It demanded “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

It recognized no territorial changes “to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.”

It “(c)alled upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

It “(c)alled for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard…”

The US and Israel consistently ignore SC resolutions and other international laws opposing their imperial agenda.

Israel unlawfully considers Jerusalem its exclusive capital. Under international law, it was illegally annexed.

On September 28, the PA petitioned the ICJ, stating:

“The relocation of the United States embassy in Israel to the Holy City of Jerusalem constitutes a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961” – as well as UN resolutions discussed above.

The PA called on the ICJ to declare moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem a violation of international diplomatic law – demanding it be withdrawn.

In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member UN observer status. Law Professor Francis Boyle earlier said:

“The world had inflicted a terrible injustice upon the Palestinian people in 1947-1948.

There would be no peace in the Middle East until this injustice was somehow rectified; and

The Palestinian people were certainly entitled to an independent nation state of their own.”

Diplomatic recognition by over two-thirds of UN member states affords Palestine de facto membership in the world body – de jure status “only a matter of time,” said Boyle.

Withdrawing from the Vienna Convention protocol is all about the Trump regime’s unwillingness to accept lawfully binding ICJ rulings – including its decision for Iran, saying certain US sanctions on the country violated the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, the ruling discussed in a same-day article.

Bolton said the Trump regime “will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution (sic) in the International Court of Justice.”

US aggression against one non-threatening country after another, along with countless other hostile actions, clearly shows it’s an international outlaw, a pariah state, under Republicans and undemocratic Dems.

Neocon extremists in charge of Trump’s geopolitical agenda match or exceed the unlawful actions of their predecessors – their policies further isolating the US from the world community.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Trump supposedly made an imaginative suggestion to Spain that it build a wall across the Sahara desert to keep out illegal immigrants.

The Spanish Foreign Minister revealed that the American President even remarked that “the Sahara border can’t be bigger than our border with Mexico”, which drew much mockery in the Liberal-Globalist Mainstream Media because the peninsular country only has two very small enclaves in Africa that are located near northern Morocco’s mountains and not anywhere close to the Sahara desert. Instead of the gaffe that it’s being presented as, it could also be that Trump was deliberately drawing attention to a “politically incorrect” problem in his characteristically dramatic way. Spain’s new socialist government doesn’t really consider the country to be in any sort of Migrant Crisis, even though its geography makes it forever susceptible to this scenario.

The EU as a whole has finally gotten around to realizing that sub-Saharan Africa presents an immigration challenge many magnitudes greater than anything that Syria ever did, but it’s conflicted over how to preemptively address this and doesn’t seem to have any clear-cut plan. A few countries have dispatched military forces to transit states Mali and Niger for anti-terrorist purposes, while some are also considering paying these states and other regional ones to incentivize their governments to stop illegal immigrants at their borders instead of letting them cross through to North Africa and thenceforth Europe. A “hybrid solution” of sorts is for the EU to cut a Turkish-like migrant deal that includes a combination of so-called “disembarkation centers” and de-facto bribes, but it’s unclear how successful that would be if it’s ever even implemented.

What Trump’s suggestion seemed to imply is that more stringent border measures need to be in place as far away from Europe as possible in order to most successfully thwart these future immigrant waves, which would basically make Mali, Niger, and possibly also Mauritania, Chad, and Sudan the EU’s so-called “frontline states” instead of Spain, Italy, Malta, and Greece, but getting them to cooperate with any such plans will entail having to overcompensate them for the socio-political and financial costs that they’ll  have to undertake in that case. This is a serious burden upon states that could ordinarily care less about dealing with this problem, and they’re also prone to resort to heavy-handed measures that contradict the EU’s “human rights” “gospel” if they even do choose to respond.

Ironically, the end result might be that the EU’s “democracy” and “human rights” “utopia” is ultimately upheld by Brussels bribing “anti-democratic” states to carry out “humanitarian crimes” against migrants.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

On September 20, 2018 the White House released the US National Cyber Strategy, which was signed by President Donald Trump.

It probably delighted both hawks and Democrats. The former were pleased that the strategy includes new components that clearly indicate an expansionist momentum.  And the latter were gratified by the Trump administration’s renewed interest in the subject of cyberspace, since Donald Trump eliminated the position of White House cybersecurity coordinator after his election and significantly reduced spending in this area. But the president now seems to have reconsidered, as indicated by the fact that the 40-page document is in many respects a rehash of efforts from the Obama era.

US Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen (image above) noted in her statement that

“[t]oday’s National Cyber Strategy — the first in fifteen years — strengthens the government’s commitment to work in partnership with industry to combat those threats and secure our critical infrastructure.”

Her press release went on to say,

“With respect to securing federal networks, for example, we have used our authorities to ensure agencies are updating and patching systems, strengthening their email security, and removing Kaspersky antivirus products from their systems.”

Was this reference to the Russian company just a coincidence? Of course not. Even a cursory glance at this strategy drives home the point that Russia is being singled out as a militant enemy of the United States, and Washington is ready to start leaning hard on it.

It is also telling that several days before this document was released, an updated version of the US Department of Defense’s cyber strategy was published, which suggests that the Pentagon and the Trump administration are working in tandem to a certain extent. Their mutual interests are also evident from a comparison of statements from the summary of the two documents.

Here is the Pentagon’s strategy in a nutshell:

“We are engaged in a long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. These States have expanded that competition to include persistent campaigns in and through cyberspace that pose long-term strategic risk to the Nation as well as to our allies and partners. China is eroding U.S. military overmatch and the Nation’s economic vitality by persistently exfiltrating sensitive information from U.S. public and private sector institutions. Russia has used cyber-enabled information operations to influence our population and challenge our democratic processes. Other actors, such as North Korea and Iran, have similarly employed malicious cyber activities to harm U.S. citizens and threaten U.S. interests. Globally, the scope and pace of malicious cyber activity continue to rise. The United States’ growing dependence on the cyberspace domain for nearly every essential civilian and military function makes this an urgent and unacceptable risk to the Nation.”

And the introduction of the US National Cyber Strategy states:

“Russia, Iran, and North Korea conducted reckless cyber attacks that harmed American and international national businesses and our allies and partners … China engaged in cyber-enabled economic espionage and trillions of dollars of intellectual property theft … The Administration recognizes that the United States is engaged in a continuous competition against strategic adversaries, rogue states, and terrorist and criminal networks. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea all use cyberspace as a means to challenge the United States, its allies, and partners … These adversaries use cyber tools to undermine our economy and democracy, steal our intellectual property, and sow discord in our democratic processes. We are vulnerable to peacetime cyber attacks against critical infrastructure, and the risk is growing that these countries will conduct cyber attacks against the United States during a crisis short of war. These adversaries are continually developing new and more effective cyber weapons.” (emphasis added)

So, Russia is now being singled out in this very official way as an enemy of the US!

President Donald Trump walks to Air Force One on Sept. 19, 2018, at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. (Source: author)

And in order to combat these threats, both real and fictitious, the leaders of the US intend to embark upon a course of risk management, by introducing new information technologies, establishing priorities in business projects, and funneling government funds to cybersecurity contractors.

On pages 9 and 10 of the strategy, there are two subsections that refer to the global cybersecurity of maritime transportation and outer space. Since free and unfettered access to the sea, skies, and outer space is closely tied to America’s economic and national security, US control over those domains and the use of various technical means — from ships to future satellite systems — is listed as one of the priorities.

The tasks enumerated also include updates to electronic surveillance, which will enable intelligence agencies to monitor streams of data, the transfer of new powers to investigative and prosecuting agencies, and the development of new ways to prosecute individuals outside the United States (i.e., the citizens of foreign countries), as well as other active measures:

“All instruments of national power are available to prevent, respond to, and deter malicious cyber activity against the United States.  This includes diplomatic, information, military (both kinetic and cyber), financial, intelligence, public attribution, and law enforcement capabilities.”

In other words, responses to a cyberattack can now include the imposition of sanctions, the coordination of a propaganda campaign in the puppet media, or a missile launch.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, the US president’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, noted specifically that the White House had

“authorized offensive cyber operations… not because we want more offensive operations in cyberspace, but precisely to create the structures of deterrence that will demonstrate to adversaries that the cost of their engaging in operations against us is higher than they want to bear.” (emphasis added)

However, America’s historical approach to geopolitical (and military) deterrence is rife with interference in the affairs of other countries, including the orchestration of bloody coups and overt intervention under contrived pretexts (Haiti in 1993 springs to mind), which are precisely the ways in which the US operates.

By shifting these tactics into cyberspace, we can assume that DDoS attacks and the introduction of malware and spyware, as well as a variety of assaults against vulnerable “enemy” sites (and those could be anything from the servers belonging to banks and cellular service providers to databases belonging to private citizens, manufacturing infrastructure, or the various systems that provide essential social services), are the least of what we can expect from the Pentagon. It is possible that a few countries that have suitable experience in cybersecurity will manage to fend off such attacks.  But it is more than likely that some states will be unable to effectively and painlessly deflect them.

And even a kinetic response is mentioned! And that is solely a military prerogative. This is why we are quoting an excerpt from the US Department of Defense’s strategy.

The Pentagon’s document clearly states how this strategy will be carried out.

“Our strategic approach is based on mutually reinforcing lines of effort to build a more lethal force; compete and deter in cyberspace; expand alliances and partnerships; reform the Department; and cultivate talent.”

The first item openly attests to these aggressive military intentions: “Our focus will be on fielding capabilities that are scalable, adaptable, and diverse to provide maximum flexibility to Joint Force commanders. The Joint Force will be capable of employing cyberspace operations throughout the spectrum of conflict, from day-to-day operations to wartime, in order to advance U.S. interests.”

To put it more simply, the US military is now literally getting a green light to launch cyberattacks and other cyber operations around the world.  You can even forget about any formal declaration of war, because that is a rather complex procedure in the US, and for many recent years American soldiers have been sent to various destinations abroad as part of military operations that do not officially meet the criteria for either war or stabilization campaigns. But the US is up to all kinds of legal shenanigans. And given that no clear definition exists of what constitutes “malicious acts in cyberspace” and the fact that that label could thus be used to snare anyone or anything, this trend in the US military and political establishment might set a sobering precedent.

What’s more, this is a clear signal for Washington to begin applying pressure through international organizations, primarily via the UN.  Since the United Nations has for many years served as a platform for debates over the regulation of global cyberspace, and the US has clearly been on the losing side in numerous high-level discussions about national jurisdiction, sovereignty, and responsibility, Washington seems to be trying to take its revenge — now resorting to accusations and the techniques of preemptive diplomacy (i.e., threats and blackmail — the proven tools of US foreign policy).

In this regard, it is no coincidence that the Global Security website highlighted one point from that strategy, which reads:

“ADVANCING AMERICAN INFLUENCE: The National Cyber Strategy will preserve the long-term openness of the internet [sic], which supports and reinforces American interests.”

But how can the openness of the Internet promote US interests? Obviously that can only happen when the Americans set the rules of the game in cyberspace, like those the US has established that govern world trade through American control over banking transactions, stock exchanges, and other tools of the globalized economy. And if some countries refuse to follow Washington’s orders, they will be once again be labeled as pariahs and accused of acting maliciously. The refusal to adopt US standards will be treated as an act of war by other means against American citizens. This is as serious as the statement made by George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001, at which time he declared, “whoever is not with us is against us.”

And unsubstantiated allegations about the interference of “Russian hackers” in the US presidential election and about China’s industrial espionage against American companies might someday look like a naive example of much ado about nothing, compared with what Washington is about to plunge into.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Leonid Savin is a geopolitical analyst, Chief editor of Geopolitica.ru, founder and chief editor of Journal of Eurasian Affairs; head of the administration of International Eurasian Movement.

All unilateral sanctions by one country against others are flagrantly illegal. Under international law, Security Council members alone may impose them.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ-World Court) preliminary ruling against the US is positive. It didn’t go far enough because on July 16, 2018, the Islamic Republic petitioned the ICJ for sanctions relief, claiming the Trump regime violated terms of their 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.

Below are key relevant parts of the ICJ’s ruling:

The Court ruled that “it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty to deal with the case, to the extent that the dispute between the Parties relates to the ‘interpretation or application” of the said Treaty.”

“The power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights of the parties in a given case, pending its final decision.”

The 1955 treaty “prohibits the United States from imposing restrictions or prohibitions on the import of any Iranian product or on the export of any product to Iran, unless the import or export of the like product from or to all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.”

“(T)he Court concludes that, at the present stage of the proceedings, some of the rights asserted by Iran under the 1955 Treaty are plausible in so far as they relate to the importation and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as (i) medicines and medical devices; and (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation, such as (iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related inspections) necessary for civil aircraft.”

“The Court is of the view that a prejudice can be considered as irreparable when the persons concerned are exposed to danger to health and life.”

“In its opinion, the measures adopted by the United States have the potential to endanger civil aviation safety in Iran and the lives of its users to the extent that they prevent Iranian airlines from acquiring spare parts and other necessary equipment, as well as from accessing associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and safety-related inspections) necessary for civil aircraft.”

“The Court further considers that restrictions on the importation and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as foodstuffs and medicines, including life-saving medicines, treatment for chronic disease or preventive care, and medical equipment may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals on the territory of Iran.”

The Court concluded that there is “little prospect of improvement,” based on harsh US behavior toward Iran.

“(T)he Court considers that there is urgency, taking into account the imminent implementation by the United States of an additional set of measures scheduled for after 4 November 2018.”

“It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by Iran…”

“THE COURT,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

(1) Unanimously,

The United States of America, in accordance with its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of

(i) medicines and medical devices;

(ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and

(iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation;

(2) Unanimously,

The United States of America shall ensure that licenses and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the goods and services referred to in point (1);

(3) Unanimously,

Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”

The ICJ’s ruling is positive for all countries abused by unjust and unilaterally imposed sanctions against them.

Washington weaponized them to wage political and economic war on targeted nations – notably Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea and Venezuela.

Sanctions imposed for these reasons lack legitimacy. Unilaterally imposed ones are flagrantly illegal.

Following the ICJ’s ruling, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the following:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the decision made by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the only major judicial body of the UN and the tribunal’s issuing of an injunction against the US administration’s illegal move to restore unilateral sanctions which came upon the country’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal,” adding:

“(T)he court’s unanimous decision (is a) clear testament to the truthfulness of Iran and the illegitimacy and unfairness of the United States’ sanctions against our country’s people and citizens.”

Though the Court’s ruling is binding, Washington notoriously flouts what conflicts with its interests.

The Trump regime is highly unlikely to change its hostile agenda toward Iran. It’s most unlikely to abide by the Court’s ruling. What’s most important is how the world community reacts.

Rejecting unilaterally imposed US sanctions against Iran would be a major triumph for the Islamic Republic – especially ones imposed by the Trump regime and GOP-dominated Congress under the so-called Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

It directs Trump to impose sanctions on Iran’s legitimate ballistic missile program – intended solely for defense.

It falsely accuses Iran of having or developing weapons of mass destruction – meaning nukes it doesn’t have, deplores, and wants eliminated everywhere.

It prohibits the sale or transfer of military and related equipment to Iran, as well as technical and financial aid.

On August 6, the Trump regime reimposed nuclear-related sanctions on Iran. Stiffer  JCPOA-related sanctions will be reimposed on November 4 – targeting Tehran’s energy sector, petroleum related products, and central bank transactions.

Its policy is all about isolating Iran politically and economically, notably attempting to block its oil sales, access to hard currencies and foreign investments, along with harsh sanctions and overall financial hardships – part of a regime change plot.

Nations continuing normal trade relations with Iran face possible US sanctions, especially ones purchasing its oil.

The strategy is unlikely to work. The ICJ ruling makes it tougher, giving credence to Iran’s claims about illegal US actions against the country.

The Trump regime no doubt will ignore the ruling, further isolating itself. It’s up to the world community to use the ICJ ruling to break from its hostile agenda against the Islamic Republic, rendering it useless.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the ICJ decision another defeat for the “sanctions-addicted” US, a “victory for the rule of law,” making it “imperative for the international community to collectively counter US unilateralism,” adding:

The ruling showed “Iran is right, and that US sanctions against people and citizens of our country are illegitimate and cruel.”

“(T)he US government is growing more isolated day by day due to its wrong and extremist policies and as a result of its own excessive demands on other countries.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

Venezuela: President Nicolas Maduro’s Risks His Life with Surprise Appearance at the United Nations General Assembly

By Carla Stea, October 04, 2018

He denounced increased US sanctions imposed on Venezuela, and denounced the August 4 assassination attempt against his own life, calling for an impartial investigation to identify the perpetrators.  He also stated his willingness to meet with President Trump, whom, he mentioned had also signaled willingness to meet with him.

Seven Days in September. Insider Moves to Oust a Constitutionally Elected President Made Public

By Joe Lauria, October 04, 2018

What unfolded appears reminiscent of the novel and film Seven Days in May: the story of an attempted military coup against a U.S. president who sought better relations with Russia. The fictional president was based on the real one, John F. Kennedy, who opened the White House in 1963 to director John Frankenheimer to film the only scenes of a Hollywood movie ever made there.

Best Government Money Can Buy

By Philip Giraldi, October 04, 2018

Adelson’s recent successes in translating his political donations into policy favorable to Israel have included shifting the US Embassy to Jerusalem, cutting aid to Palestinians, ending the Iranian nuclear monitoring agreement and closing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s diplomatic office in Washington.

Anthrax False Flag Redux?

By Kurt Nimmo, October 03, 2018

Immediately after the anthrax attacks in 2001, Bush neocons put pressure on FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove the mysterious attack was the work of al-Qaeda, a fantasy on par with Saddam’s WMDs. This story—the essence of fake news—left out something important: it takes complex equipment to prepare anthrax spores for weaponization and it was highly unlikely if not impossible forOsama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to produce the substance in a remote Afghan cave. 

History of World War II: Hitler’s Favorite Commando and Committed Nazi: Otto Skorzeny

By Shane Quinn, October 03, 2018

In his book published 30 years after the war, Skorzeny writes that after a discussion in early 1943 with the rocket engineer Wernher von Braun, Hitler predicted mankind would be able to venture into space.

Eighty Years On: The Shame and Tragedy of the 1938 Munich Agreement

By Marcus Papadopoulos, October 03, 2018

Following Hitler’s demands for the Sudetenland to be handed to Germany on the spurious claims of discrimination against ethnic Germans residing in this region by the Czech authorities, Britain and France decided to enter into negotiations with Hitler, in a policy known as appeasement.

Syrians Matter: They have Chosen NOT to be Occupied by the West’s Al Qaeda Terrorists

By Mark Taliano, October 03, 2018

Colonial politicians mirror this agenda. They are fronts for the warmongers who are committing an overseas holocaust, as they thirdworldize North America. They propagate the Lie that the wars are “humanitarian”.

On September 14, in an address to the far right American organisation called The Heritage Foundation,  the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, described NATO in effect to be a world government prepared for eternal war. He declared NATO to be the “guarantor of peace and stability in Europe since 1949,” when in fact it has only succeeded in bringing war and catastrophe, for the only real guarantor of peace and stability in Europe until 1991 was the Red Army, the withdrawal of which allowed the NATO war machine to move right up to Russia’s borders.

For Stoltenberg the Warsaw pact didn’t exist. Yet it was the necessary counter to the continuous NATO threats against Eastern Europe and the USSR. Without the Warsaw Pact, without the Red Army, the Americans and their lieutenants would have swept across Europe long ago, on behalf of the captains of free enterprise, with the same resulting misery for the masses as they have caused since. The United Nations does not even figure in Mr. Stoltenberg’s universe. It might as well not exist, nor the Non-Aligned Movement, which also played a significant role in trying to establish the principles of non-interference, of national sovereignty, respect for different social and economic systems, and adherence to international legal principles.

The support of national liberation movements by the USSR that succeeded in liberating the peoples of the third world from colonialism was one of the most important advances of democracy in world history. Yet according to Mr. Stoltenberg this liberation of the colonial peoples was “aggression from the Soviet Union” while NATO is “an alliance seeking a stable rules-based international climate where all nations can prosper,” when in fact he meant that the NATO nations can prosper.

He confessed this when he stated that NATO has helped to “spread democratic values, free enterprise and stability” to millions of people in the eastern part of Europe when in fact NATO has only replaced socialist democracy with capitalist democracy, the democracy of the working people, with the democracy of capital, by capital and for capital and in nations such as Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and numerous countries in Africa has acted to crush local democracies that oppose NATO’s interests.

To advance “free enterprise” that is to ensure the complete freedom of movement of capital of the NATO nations against the wishes of the peoples of the world, he proudly boasted of their nuclear arms and readiness to use them and admitted that the twenty-eight American bases in Europe are “not only for Europe, they enable the US to project military power across the wider Middle East and Africa.” He happily pointed out that the US Africa Command, one is tempted to use the Nazi Wehrmacht term Afrika Korps, is based, not in Africa, but in Stuttgart, Germany and that the US 6th Fleet that patrols from the Barents Sea to Antarctica is based in Naples while its jackboot troopers wounded while wreaking havoc in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan are treated in Ramstein, Germany.

He then repeated the US-NATO claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was a collective defence action under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty when Afghanistan had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident in New York and when invocation of that section of the NATO Treaty was in violation of Article 1 that requires the NATO powers to adhere to the UN Charter which forbids military action against a nation unless approved by the Security Council.

He claimed that NATO’s agreed to increase in military spending is “real progress” and that “we are moving in the right direction” and congratulated Donald Trump for his leadership. In response to a question he stated that the US and its allies intend to occupy Afghanistan forever. He stated,

“We have to remember that the reason we are in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven for international terrorists.”

This is a double lie of course since Afghanistan was never a base for terrorists attacks on any NATO country and instead was used by the US to launch terrorist attacks on Soviet forces and the Afghan government in the 1980’s leading to the rise of the Taliban, and that it is the NATO powers that have themselves terrorised the Afghan people for 17 years. But this will continue to serve as their pretext for the continued occupation of central Asia, a dagger thrust at the bodies of Russia, Iran and China.

Since that speech the nations of the world addressed the General Assembly with the NATO boss, President Trump, reprising George Bush’s “you are either with us or against us” threat to the world. We can imagine him going back to his office afterwards, pleased with himself and there, in homage to Charlie Chaplin’s portrayal of Hitler, tossing the world globe around as if it were his personal toy.

In support of the American claim to rule the world the 2019 US Defence Budget increases spending to new heights with an emphasis on nuclear weapons at the same time as it commits crimes against humanity by squeezing the economy of North Korea to force that small but proud nation to render itself defenceless against a US attack by abandoning its nuclear weapons, while saying nothing about Israeli nuclear weapons or Israel’s occupation of Palestine or its constant attacks on Syria on behalf of its US patrons.

The US Defence Budget of 1.3 trillion dollars not only staggers the mind with the amount of money to be wasted that could be spent on better things for the citizens of the US, it reads as if the group that wrote it were high on mind altering drugs. On the second page of the Overview it is stated,

“Today, the United States is emerging from a period of strategic atrophy in which the Department’s competitive military advantage has been eroding. The United States is facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any the United States has experienced in recent memory. Major power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.

“The costs of not implementing this strategy are clear. Failure to meet the DoD’s objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in U.S. prosperity and standard of living.”

The first lie in this statement is that the US military advantage is eroding. Perhaps one can say that in terms of technical advances they lag Russia and perhaps China but in terms of men and material, bases, ships, aircraft, submarines and nuclear weapons it has never been more of a threat to world peace.

The second lie is that the US faces increased global disorder, as if it had nothing to do with it, for the global disorder we now face is entirely due to their invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, their overthrow of the government of Ukraine and support of Nazis there, their attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, Yemen, the US backed Georgian invasion of Ossetia, the support of Chechens attacking Russia security forces, their support of the so-called colour “revolutions” in North Africa, their destruction of Libya, of Yugoslavia, their constant aggression against Russia, North Korean and China using military, economic, and propaganda warfare, their backing of a coup against the government of Turkey and even disturbing otherwise compliant relations with its loyal vassal, Canada.

The US and its NATO allies treat international law with contempt, use intense propaganda on their own peoples to brainwash them to support this criminality, and try to intimidate them with their “war on terror” as they savaged civil liberties. Law means nothing to the psychopaths who rule these nations and whose slogan is “peace through strength” or, to penetrate the euphemism, “peace through war.”

But they reveal their real purpose with the line that they fear “reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in U.S. prosperity and standard of living.” In other words, American capitalists fears loss of profit and their standard of living. They could not care less about the constant decline in living standards of the masses caused by their military spending to support the living standards of the rich.

But just as the US provoked war with Japan in 1941 with its oil blockade preventing Japan from access to energy supplies, the US has now signaled that it is contemplating a naval blockade of Russia but in this case to prevent it from marketing its energy supplies. The American Interior Minister, Ryan Zinke, stated on September 28, in relation to Russia that,

“The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade … to make sure that their energy does not go to market.”

The statement makes little sense on the face of it since most of Russia’s energy exports are through pipelines to Europe and China not by sea and so a naval blockade would seem to be an empty threat, even an absurd one. However, Russia is sending increasing amounts of liquefied natural gas by ship to China, India and Venezuela and even the northeast USA from its recently completed Yamal LNG plant on the Arctic Ocean in Siberia which has a huge capacity to refine and export gas drilled in northern Russia. The US is intent on cornering the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian markets and wants to prevent exports of gas to Venezuela and of course it is unhappy that Russian gas appeared in the US market to meet demand that US producers could not satisfy. So the threat of a blockade is real one and if attempted would be an act of war, just as their threats to try to shut in Iranian energy exports constitute an act of war.

So, once again the world is on the brink of war over the division of resources and markets, a war that has been going on for centuries while we the people suffer the consequences. And what is it all about but profit, profit for them, but misery for us as they prepare for the next act in what seems their eternal war.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

“The United States seems destined to plague all of the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.”  Simon Bolivar, 1829

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018, the Chief of Staff of former President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, affirmed that: 

“Donald Trump’s government could eventually be considering taking military action in Venezuela to avoid domestic legal and political pressures facing the mid-term elections scheduled to take place in October.”

On September 3, 2018 the Permanent Representative of the USA to the OAS, Ambassador Carlos Trujillo, threatened Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro Moros, and said that he was putting himself at risk if he decided to travel to New York to participate in the General Debate of the 73 Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.  Trujillo further stated that a conflict is being planned involving the Governments of Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Peru, to launch an attack against Venezuela.  On September 21, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News that the US government is preparing a “series of actions” in coming days to increase pressure on the Venezuelan government.”

Despite threats to President Maduro’s life, including the August 4 assassination attempt  during which seven people were injured when “drone-like” devices exploded suspiciously close to President Maduro, and which Maduro attributed to a homicidal intent by political enemies such as Columbian President Juan Manuel Santos,  President Maduro himself arrived at the United Nations General Assembly, and spoke there on September 26.  He denounced increased US sanctions imposed on Venezuela, and denounced the August 4 assassination attempt against his own life, calling for an impartial investigation to identify the perpetrators.  He also stated his willingness to meet with President Trump, whom, he mentioned had also signaled willingness to meet with him.

The list of actions contemplated and threatened against the Venezuelan government of Nicholas Maduro Moro is very long and alarming, and follows the classic regime change blueprint of destabilization and intervention by which progressive governments have been weakened and eventually overthrown in Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.  The methods were partially enumerated by Venezuelan Ambassador Mr. Suarez Moreno during the September 5 meeting of the UN Security Council:

“We sound the alarm that the external aggression is continuing, including through interventionist initiatives imposed by the Organization of American States, an authority that, as expressed in the budget legislation allocating funds for the United States Department of State for the 2018 fiscal year, responds to the strategic interests of that country….

Is it not true that the United States officials threaten OAS member countries to vote against Venezuela and Nicaragua in that regional forum? 

Is it not true that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Director of the United States CIA at that time, said in July 2017 that he had worked with the Governments of Colombia and Mexico to promote a transition in Venezuela? 

Is it not true that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in August 2017 that he was creating the conditions for a change of government in Venezuela?  Is it not true that in August 2017 President Donald Trump threatened Venezuela with a military intervention? 

Is it not true that in August of 2017 Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the Government of the United States is doing everything possible to harm Venezuela economically?  Is it not true that in February, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson openly called for a military revolt in Venezuela?…

Is it not true that in Brazil, in June, Vice-President Mike Pence said that the time had come to take firmer and additional actions to isolate Venezuela? 

Is it not true that in July, the USAID in Caracas was encouraging the Venezuelan opposition?  Is it not true that in August, following a meeting on Venezuela with National Security Adviser John Bolton, Senator Marco Rubio declared that the time had come for military intervention?……Venezuela reiterates its rejection of the manner in which some countries invoke the humanitarian pretext to use the Security Council as a tool to promote their policy of regime change that has caused so much damage to the peoples of Africa and the Middle East, while leading to a humanitarian crisis of previously unimaginable proportions…”

“Lastly, since Ambassador Nikki Haley invoked his memory, in 1829 the liberator Simon Bolivar said that the United States seemed to be destined to plague all of the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.  History has shown the judiciousness of his premonition.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

---

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

A new book, an anonymous Op-Ed and an Obama speech in the first seven days of September appeared to reveal dangerous insider moves against a dangerous, but constitutionally elected president, writes Joe Lauria.

In the first seven days of September efforts to manage and perhaps oust a constitutionally elected president were stunningly made public,  raising complex questions about America’s vaunted democratic system.

What unfolded appears reminiscent of the novel and film Seven Days in May: the story of an attempted military coup against a U.S. president who sought better relations with Russia. The fictional president was based on the real one, John F. Kennedy, who opened the White House in 1963 to director John Frankenheimer to film the only scenes of a Hollywood movie ever made there.

Kennedy was well aware of the Pentagon brass’ political fury after his refusal to proceed with a full-scale assault against Cuba in the Bay of Pigs operation. It was compounded by his desire for detente with Moscow after the Cuban Missile Crisis, which Kennedy expressed forcefully in his seminal American University address, five months before his death.

This is the essential (must watch) scene in the film, a brilliant 2:25 minutes of screen history:

The key quote from the character playing Kennedy is:

“You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical affection for your country, why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hellbent to protect?”

You didn’t have to know Jack Kennedy to know that Donald Trump is no Jack Kennedy. Trump has staked out a raft of positions dangerous to the interests of most Americans and people around the world: on climate, billionaire tax breaks, health insurance, drone warfare, torture, immigration, Iran, Palestine and more.

But Trump has ostensibly tried to improve relations with Russia and North Korea to defuse the most sensitive nuclear trigger points on earth.  And for that he at least appears to be getting the pre-1963 Kennedy treatment.

Circumstantial 

Until the first seven days of September there was only circumstantial evidence that intelligence agencies worked with the party in power to undermine the opposition party candidate before the election and the president afterward.

These included:

• a series of anonymous leaks to undermine the president from Obama’s intelligence officials, one admitted to by then FBI Director James Comey;
• a series of anti-Trump political messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, including one that admits to there being “no there, there” regarding Trump-Russia collusion, even though Strzok joined Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team precisely to look for a “there, there;”
• the use of a Democratic Party paid-for opposition research dossier  (not an intelligence agency vetted report) to be later used to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and form a basis for the Mueller probe;
• a CIA and FBI operative, linked to the firm that produced the dossier, who had infiltrated Jimmy Carter’s 1980 campaign, and in 2016 courted Trump campaign operatives in a possible sting operation to connect Trump to Moscow.

This created a picture of the Democrats, the ruling party in the executive branch, using its intelligence agencies to undermine first a candidate and then a constitutionally elected president. Most of the corporate media buried or dismissed these leads as a “conspiracy theory,” while relentlessly pushing the so-far unproven conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

The effort appeared to be classic projection onto Russia to deflect attention from Hillary Clinton’s self-made defeat and, in centuries-old political tradition, to falsely blame a hostile foreign power for rising domestic unrest resulting instead from bi-partisan, unjust policies, which have indeed “undermined our democracy” and “sowed social divisions.” It was that unrest that helped elect Trump.

As much of a danger as he may be to the republic, Trump will be gone in two or six years. The greater danger may well have been out-of-control, unelected intelligence officials inserting themselves into the electoral process and now, allied with Trump administration officials, into the governing process. A saying at the National Security Agency is: “Administrations come and go, but we will still be here.”

Long-time Suspicions 

There have always been suspicions of forces behind the scenes holding the real power over American presidents. We only occasionally get glimpses of this.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter openly defied President Barack Obama when he sabotaged a plan to cooperate militarily with Russia against extremists in Syria by killing dozens of Syrian Arab Army soldiers just as Secretary of State John Kerry was nailing down the details of the agreement, which was then abandoned. This came as unelected officials pressured Obama to directly intervene in Syria.

Most of the time we are left to speculate about the unseen forces controlling a president.

But in September’s first seven days we had three unusually public indications of unelected people trying to undermine an elected president:  the revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book; the anonymous op-ed in The New York Times and an unusual speech by Barack Obama about Trump.

Masha Gessen, a strong critic of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, explained the danger this way in The New Yorker: 

“Having this state of affairs described in print further establishes that an unelected body, or bodies, are overruling and actively undermining the elected leader. While this may be the country’s salvation in the short run, it also plainly signals the demise of some of its most cherished ideals and constitutional norms. An anonymous person or persons cannot govern for the people, because the people do not know who is governing.”

Real Evidence Emerges 

On Sept. 5, The New York Times took the highly unusual decision to publish an anonymous op-ed article. Titled, “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” it had the subtitle: “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”

The official, who has yet to be unmasked, provides clear evidence of unelected officials trying to control a less-than aware president:  “The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda…”

But here is the key.  This behind-the-throne power has a distinct political agenda. They’re not really concerned about “rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans” as the writer professes. Their concern is  determining policy.

For instance this cabal has no problem with some of the most regressive parts of Trump’s program. The writer celebrates them.  “Don’t get me wrong,” he writes. “There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.”

Deregulation to let the private sector run roughshod over workers. Deregulation to worsen climate change. Tax reform to put millions more into billionaire’s pockets while average Americans remain mired in debt. And a more robust military to multiply human suffering around the world.

This, instead, seems like the real problem the insiders have with Trump: “On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.”

It is Trump’s Russia policy–the only rational part of his agenda–that is their problem, not unlike the generals in Frankenheimer’s masterpiece.

Obama Slams Trump

On Sept. 7, Obama broke with the tradition of former presidents and criticized his successor in a speech at the University of Illinois. It’s an unwritten rule in Washington then when you leave the White House you don’t look back. Of course it’s been broken before. Teddy Roosevelt called Taft a “puzzlewit” and a “fathead.”  But the idea is that when you are no longer an elected president you shouldn’t undermine the one who is.

“How hard can that be, saying that Nazis are bad?” Obama said, referring to Trump’s reluctance to condemn neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, VA last year.

As Obama was still president when his intelligence agencies apparently went to work on Trump, it was a bit rich for him to say: “”It should not be Democratic or Republican, it should not be partisan to say that we don’t pressure the Department of Justice or the FBI to use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents.”

Evidently recalling his own battles with administration officials who pressured him, Obama however recognized that it is undemocratic for a president’s team to try to undermine him.  “The idea that everything will turn out OK because there are people inside the White House who secretly aren’t following the President’s orders,” Obama said of the anonymous op-ed, “… is not a check. I am being serious here. That is not how our democracy is supposed to work.”

Fear Over Fear

The most alarming revelations about the effort to control a president come from Woodward’s book, Fear: Trump in the White House, which first appeared in the media during the first seven days of September on Sept. 4. Woodward said in an interview that he “looked hard for evidence of collusion with Russia, but didn’t find any.”

That did not stop members of Team Trump from interfering in his duties as chief executive, going well beyond the role of counseling the president.

Much of Woodward’s reporting is from anonymous and second hand sources.  Assuming that what he writes is true he reported that former White House economic adviser Gary Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk.”  Had Trump signed it, the U.S. would have withdrawn from a free trade agreement with South Korea.  Woodward quotes Cohn in the words of an unnamed official as saying, “I stole it off his desk….I wouldn’t let him see it. He’s never going to see that document. Got to protect the country.”

That would appear to cross the line.

However it then becomes a lot more complicated than Seven Days in May. 

“He drafts a tweet saying, ‘We are going to pull out dependents from South Korea … Family members of the 28,000 people there,’” Woodward told CBS News.

According to CBS:

That tweet was never sent, because of a back channel message from North Korea that it would regard a pullout of dependents as a sign the U.S. was preparing to attack. “At that moment there was a sense of profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership that, ‘My God, one tweet and we have reliable information that the North Koreans are going to read this as an attack is imminent,’” Woodward said.

According to the book, Trump also told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad after the April 2017 chemical attack.  “Let’s fucking kill him! Let’s go in. Let’s kill the fucking lot of them,” Trump said, according to Woodward. (That would not please the Kremlin, his supposed master, but whatever) .

Mattis supposedly told Trump he’d “get right on it” but ignored the order.  Mattis devised pin prick strikes instead.

Is that insubordination? Or was that saving the U.S., the Middle East and perhaps the world from a major war?

It certainly sets up an excruciating dilemma. This time it may be the generals preserving the peace.

Seven Days in September may indeed be the reverse of Seven Days in May.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

S-300 air defense systems can detect and target enemy aircraft, missiles, and other aerial objects as distant as 250 km (155 miles) away.

They can lock on to up to six targets simultaneously, able to fire two missiles at each one, downing what’s targeted at 4 to 8.5 mach speed, depending on which system is installed.

Evasive targets can’t escape detection, targeting and downing, including low-flying objects approaching from different directions.

S-300 ground-to-air missiles can be fired in three seconds after detecting a threat, effectively countering it, why Washington and Israel object to Russia supplying this capability to Syrian forces.

On Wednesday, Trump’s State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert called their installation “a serious escalation.”

It’s precisely the opposite, a purely defensive system, not an offensive one, intended solely to protect Syrian security and Russian ground personnel in the country.

It only threatens attacking aircraft and other aggressive aerial objects. That’s what it’s designed for, a security system, not an aggressive one.

On Tuesday, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said the following:

“In conformity with the presidential decision, we have begun to carry out a number of measures to reinforce Syria’s air defense systems in order to ensure better protection for our servicemen,” adding:

“We have completed the delivery of S-300 systems. It included 49 pieces of equipment, including radars, control vehicles and four launchers.”

Additional launchers and equipment will likely be delivered if needed. S-300s being installed are equipped with automated control systems – up to now only available to Russian military personnel in Syria.

The sophisticated air defense system can suppress satellite navigation, radars and communications systems of attacking warplanes and missiles well before they reach intended targets.

Installation will be completed by October 20, Syrian crews trained to operate S-300s within three months.

Russian personnel will likely be jointly involved in their operation at least for a period of time – US/Israeli warplanes and missiles unlikely to create a greater provocation than already by endangering them.

The installation will be unified with Russia’s system to receive its friend or foe ID signals, reportedly including its homeland C3 command, control, and communications system, though unclear whether fully or partly.

Is the installation a game-changer on the ground in Syria? Is US/Israeli stealth capability rendered useless?

Answers to these and related questions depend on whether and how both countries may try to challenge what’s being installed.

Russia’s Defense Ministry claims S-300s and related equipment being installed for Syrian use can overcome stealth technology, medium-range ballistic missiles, tactical and cruise missiles, as well as airborne early warning and control (AWACS/AEW&C) aircraft, along with reconnaissance and strike systems.

Clearly, the Pentagon and IDF face a challenge not previously encountered in Syria – the ability of government forces to counter hostile aerial attacks much more effectively than so far once the new installation is completed an operating.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

In the 9th largest economy in the world, the financial markets are crashing, and in the 21st largest economy in the world the central bank just raised interest rates to 65 percent to support a currency that is completely imploding.  While the mainstream media in the United States continues to be obsessed with all things Kavanaugh, an international financial crisis threatens to spiral out of control. 

Stock prices are falling and currencies are collapsing all over the planet, but because the U.S. has been largely unaffected so far the mainstream media is mostly choosing to ignore what is happening.  But the truth is that this is serious.  The financial crisis in Italy threatens to literally tear the EU apart, and South America has become an economic horror show.  The situation in Brazil continues to get worse, the central bank of Argentina has just raised interest rates to 65 percent, and in Venezuela starving people are literally eating cats and dogs in order to survive.  How bad do things have to get before people will start paying attention?

On Friday, Italian stocks had their worst day in more than two years, and it was the big financial stocks that were on the cutting edge of the carnage…

Shares in Italian banks .FTIT8300, whose big sovereign bond portfolios makes them sensitive to political risk, bore the brunt of selling pressure, sinking 7.3 percent as government bonds sold off and the focus turned to rating agencies.

Along with the main Italian stock index .FTMIB, the banks had their worst day since the June 2016 Brexit vote triggered a selloff across markets.

Italian bonds got hit extremely hard too.  The following comes from Business Insider…

Bond markets are also suffering. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Italian bond jumped in Friday morning trading. Yields move inversely to price, with a higher yield reflecting an increased premium to hold the bond. The 10-year yield hit 3.22% in early morning trade, an increase of more than 10%.

So what sparked the sudden selloff?

Well, the new Italian government and the EU are at odds with one another, and the European elite were greatly displeased when Italy approved a new budget that was far larger than anticipated…

On Thursday night, six months after the government’s ascent to power, Italy’s populist coalition government of the Five Star Movement and the Northern League finally agreed on the key tenets of its first budget.

The coalition said in a statement they had agreed to set Italy’s budget deficit at 2.4% of GDP, an increase on the current level and far above the 1.6% that technocratic finance minister Giovanni Tria had lobbied for.

It is easy to criticize Italy, but what we are doing here in the United States is just as bad if not worse.

A new 854 billion dollar spending bill just got pushed through in D.C., and it is going to continue to explode the size of our national debt.  We are going down the exact same path that all of these other nations have gone down, and in the process we are literally committing national suicide.

Just look at what is happening in Argentina.  Years of wild spending have resulted in an economy that is deep in recession.  The Argentine peso has lost approximately 50 percent of its value so far in 2018, and in a desperate attempt to stop the bleeding the central bank of Argentina just panic-raised interest rates to 65 percent.

When interest rates are at 65 percent, you don’t really have an economy anymore.

What you have is an endless nightmare.

In an emergency move, the International Monetary Fund has agreed to increase the size of Argentina’s bailout to 57 billion dollars…

The International Monetary Fund and Argentina announced Wednesday an arrangement to increase resources available to the South American country by $19 billion.

The agreement, pending IMF Executive Board approval, would bring the total amount available under the program to $57.4 billion by the end of 2021, up from $50 billion.

That won’t be nearly enough to turn the situation around in Argentina, and the IMF probably knows that.

For a long time many of us have been warning of a coming global financial crisis, and now that day has arrived.

For a long time many of us have been telling you to keep a close eye on Italy, and now a day of reckoning for that very troubled nation is here.

And big problems are coming for the U.S. too.  Signs of imminent economic trouble just keep popping up, and it isn’t going to take much to push us into a new financial crisis that will be much worse than what we witnessed in 2008.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is publisher of The Most Important News and the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

On Tuesday, the United States government issued its most direct and public threat of a military strike against Russia since the height of the Cold War.

The US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, told a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels that if Russia failed to stop its development of a new cruise missile that Washington claims is in violation of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), the Pentagon was prepared to “take out” the missile.

Asked by a reporter what the US intended to do about the new class of Russian missiles, Hutchison replied,

“The counter-measures would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty.”

She continued:

“Getting them to withdraw would be our choice, of course. But I think the question was what would you do if this continues to a point where we know that they are capable of delivering. And at that point we would then be looking at a capability to take out a missile that could hit any of our countries in Europe and hit America in Alaska.”

To emphasize her threat, the US ambassador declared that Russia had been put “on notice.” This is the same kind of language used by Washington to threaten military action against Syria and Iran.

The former Texas Republican senator, who became the US ambassador to NATO last year, was speaking of the cruise missile referred to by the Russian military as the Novator 9M729. Moscow has repeatedly insisted that the missile does not violate the restrictions imposed under the INF, which banned ground-launched medium-range missiles capable of striking targets at distances between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (310-3,100 miles).

Hutchison’s remarks, delivered on the eve of a NATO defense ministers’ meeting, ratcheted up already dangerous tensions with Russia and ignited fears throughout Europe and internationally.

“If she is saying that if the diplomatic route doesn’t work we will destroy the missiles, that’s obviously dangerous and risks triggering a war that could go nuclear,” Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association, said. “I cannot recall anything like this in the post-cold war period.”

Moscow issued an angry response to Hutchinson’s reckless threat.

“The impression is that people making such claims are unaware of the degree of their responsibility and the danger of aggressive rhetoric,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters. “Who authorized this woman to make such allegations? The American people? Do ordinary Americans know that they are paying out of their pockets for so-called diplomats who behave so aggressively and destructively?”

More to the point, do the American people even know that their government is threatening to launch a preemptive war against nuclear-armed Russia, raising the potential for the extinction of life on earth? A US news media fixated on the dribble of allegations of teenage transgressions by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has all but ignored the war threat.

While Washington has repeatedly charged Russia with violating the INF treaty signed in 1987 by the US and the Soviet Union, it has yet to provide any evidence to support its allegations.

The unsubstantiated character of the US charges was underscored in a statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to reporters on Tuesday.

“All allies agree that the most plausible assessment would be that Russia is in violation of the treaty,” he said. “It is therefore urgent that Russia addresses these concerns in a substantial and transparent manner.”

For its part, Moscow has charged the US with violating the treaty with its deployment of the Aegis Ashore missile defense installations in Romania and preparations for a similar deployment in Poland. While the Pentagon insists that the installations are anti-missile systems, the Russian military has charged that they can be repurposed to launch land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles—banned under the treaty—against Russian territory.

The threatening tone adopted by Hutchison was echoed by US Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis, who spoke to reporters in Paris on his way to the NATO meeting. Referring to a potential US action in relation to the allegations of Russian violations of the INF treaty, he stated:

“I cannot forecast where it will go, it is a decision for the president, but I can tell you that both on Capitol Hill and in the State Department there is a lot of concern about this situation, and I’ll return with the advice of our allies and engage in that discussion to determine the way ahead.”

The reference to “concern” on Capitol Hill includes the vociferous campaign waged by the Democratic Party to vilify Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, and to indict Trump for “collusion” and being too “soft” on Moscow.

This posture was spelled out last month by Senator Robert Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at a hearing on US-Russia arms treaties. He called for “policies to confront Russia for its multiple and ongoing transgressions, including military aggression, malign influence and repressive policies.” He added:

“Given the reality of Russia’s current nuclear capacity, we must collectively use every diplomatic tool in our arsenal—economic, political and military—to achieve our goals.”

Leading Democrats will no doubt welcome Hutchison’s threat of a preemptive strike against Russia; it is the logical conclusion of their own politics.

Spurred on by NATO’s relentless military buildup on Russia’s borders, Washington’s continued pursuit of regime-change and threats of military strikes against the Russian-backed government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and the steady escalation of punishing sanctions against Russia and its economy, the threat of war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers has never been greater.

Underlying this drive to war is not merely the recklessness and arrogance of Trump and his aides, but the global crisis of the capitalist system, which finds its sharpest expression in the long-term economic decline of the United States. Dominant sections within the US ruling class support the use of Washington’s military might to offset this decline, including through confrontation with both Russia and China over the domination of the Middle East and the entire Eurasian land mass.

That the danger of world war is discussed neither in the media nor by the two major capitalist political parties as they prepare for the midterm elections in the US is no accident. The ruling class justifiably fears that if masses of working people were made aware that they and their families are threatened with nuclear incineration, an already tense social situation, marked by rising anger over social inequality and falling living standards, would explode into open revolt.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The US stole Russia’s hypersonic weapons secrets over the summer and is now on track to test these systems sooner than the rest of the world originally anticipated.

President Putin’s announcement in March that Russia was in possession of hypersonic weaponry was heralded as a strategic game-changer of the highest order because of the implication that the US’ decades-long “missile defense” investments were now suddenly rendered null and void, thereby restoring the nuclear balance that had been at risk of disruption by America’s moves to safeguard itself from a speculative nuclear second strike and theoretically one day give itself the prerogative to carry out a first one with impunity.

Russia and the rest of the world were on track to become the victims of nuclear blackmail had this trend been allowed to continue uninterrupted, which is why Moscow’s development of hypersonic weapons technology was such a big deal.

Russia’s restoration of the strategic nuclear balance with America was regarded as a major step forward in the direction of stabilizing the dangerous dynamics of the New Cold War and importantly allowing President Putin to concentrate on reforming the socio-economic situation at home throughout his fourth and final term in office now that his country’s international security was assured.  Somewhat unsurprisingly, however, the US soon thereafter attempted to steal Russia’s hypersonic weapons secrets and was evidently successful, at least judging by the fact that a scientist was arrested over the summer for passing off classified information about these programs to the Americans. It’s not publicly known how many secrets he gave them, but the US just declared that it plans to test this technology in the near future.

The country obviously had a preexisting hypersonic weapons program even before this, but it should be presumed that its efforts might have been greatly aided by its successful espionage operation over the summer, showing that spying does indeed pay off. This isn’t a lesson that the Russians hadn’t already learned, however, because they pretty much preceded the Americans in doing something very similar during the Old Cold War when they basically stole nuclear technology from them and restored strategic parity between the two superpowers. It can be argued that the US is also restoring parity in its own way after Russia rolled out the next generation of nuclear launch systems through its hypersonic weapons technology, but the situation actually isn’t as simple as that.

Superficially, it’s indeed true that the US restored a tit-for-tat balance with Russia that had been altered by Moscow’s announcement in March, but substantively, America will use this return to “parity” in order to continue making progress on its “missile defense” shield, albeit this time in terms of the hypersonic dimension after learning how to master this technology. That will essentially return the New Cold War back to its pre-March 2018 state of strategic affairs whereby the US continues to lead the world in anti-missile capabilities that it could tacitly exploit for nuclear blackmail purposes in order to preserve its global hegemony. The solution, then, might rest in Russia resorting to its own espionage operations and learning more about the US’ “missile defense” systems, including those that might be deployed in space.

At the end of the day, spying pays off – for better or for worse – and the world’s “second-oldest profession” will always remain relevant.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The narrative of a “humanitarian crisis” in Venezuela is being driven aggressively by the US, the EU and Colombia, while their NGOs operate at the Colombian border.

But what if NGOs are being used to influence how the movement of people from Venezuela into Colombia is being shaped and reported? To explore the idea, let’s take a look at Mercy Corps.

Mercy Corps is funded by the EU and US to the tune of $500,000 for its global operations. Its financers have included Britain’s Department of International Development, which has regularly sent aid via Mercy Corps to rebel-held areas in Syria. Other funders include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Clinton Foundation.

In March, Mercy Corps carried out a “rapid needs assessment” (RNA) of migrants arriving at two main points along the Colombian border.

The information gathered was used to demonstrate the dangers involved during and after crossings from Venezuela, and the reasons for leaving.

It is on the second point the people interviewed by Mercy Corps all say the same thing: there is an economic crisis taking place in Venezuela, linked to hyper-inflation.

These problems have been investigated by independent UN inspectors and independent journalists who explain that a cycle exists of hoarding by corporations, leading to black market trading, leading to inflation.

These are a result of the economic sanctions imposed for years upon Venezuela by the US and now the EU.

However, the NGO is not concerned with narratives that expose US and EU complicity and, as such, its recommendations fail to include the most obvious — end the sanctions and stop the hostility towards Venezuela as they are inflicting hardship on its population.

Mercy Corps has expanded its operations in Colombia to meet the urgent needs of Venezuelans. (Source: Mercy Corps)

Instead, Mercy Corps’ RNA identified three basic needs to be met by the Colombian government: a path to legal entry into Colombia that did not involve passports, the legal right to work in Colombia with the same wages and protections as Colombians and access to shelter, food and water.

A month later, the Colombian government agreed that migrants could register, without passports, at any of the 500-plus check points it would set up along the Colombian border over a two-month period, to end in June.

The reason given was to see how many Venezuelans were entering Colombia. The check points were spread along the 1,500-mile border.

Any information supplied by migrants at the checkpoints would be retained by NGOs, not passed to government departments.

By August, the Colombian government agreed that nearly half a million Venezuelans could remain in Colombia for up to two years, look for employment and access basic services. The reason given for this change was to accommodate humanitarian needs.

This change in policy was a reversal of the government’s ruling in February, when up to 3,000 Colombian soldiers were stationed along the border to check for passports.

This tightening of rules was referred to as a “diplomatic closure” and the government claimed that in a short time the number of migrants had fallen by 30 per cent.

Yet within a few weeks the Colombian government U-turned its policy, to allow the unhindered movement of Venezuelans, and NGOs such as Mercy Corps were conscripted to enable the process.

The new policy of the Colombian government met exactly the needs identified by Mercy Corps, suggesting that the campaign for this migration was an international, organised effort.

Since the government changed its policy, the number of people leaving Venezuela has increased. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an organisation affiliated to the EU, the number of Venezuelans entering Peru almost quadrupled over a four-month period: from 100,000 in March 2018 to nearly 350,000 in early June.

As the exodus expands, the humanitarian needs of migrants grow more urgent.

The situation is now being called a “regional humanitarian crisis,” creating a picture of unimaginable catastrophe that needs external intervention.

Recently, US UN ambassador Nikki Haley called a meeting at the UNSC to address what could be done regarding Venezuela’s crisis, while Luis Almagro of the Organisation of American States, which is heavily funded by the US, suggested a military intervention.

This escalating crisis narrative of an expanding exodus is placing Venezuela under intense scrutiny. While punishing Venezuela with sanctions from the front, and promoting a migration crisis from behind, the EU and US, with the co-operation of Colombia, are attempting to box Venezuela into a more isolated and vulnerable position.

Colombia has made a powerful alliance with the EU, and soon after changing its policy on Venezuelan passports it became a Nato partner, further cementing its EU and US partnerships. At the UN Colombia has been commended for its humanitarianism by its allies.

Meanwhile, Mercy Corps has consistently driven a narrative of a full-blown humanitarian crisis and rampant violence under President Nicolas Maduro, including allegations of repression and torture.

It is playing its part as a propaganda tool in vilifying the Venezuelan government, enabling its US and EU funders to continue their sanctions leading to hardship for Venezuelans, the root cause for leaving their country, as explained in Mercy Corps’ own needs assessment.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author.

At least 29 structures were demolished by Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) in the month of September, displacing 51 people- including 23 children- and affecting a further 79 people, including 54 children. In addition, two families from East Jerusalem self-demolished their homes. Inside Israel, in the Naqab desert, Israeli forces demolished the unrecognised Bedouin village Al-Arakib for the 133rd time, demolished another house in Hura, and another family self-demolished their home in Sa’wah. In central and Northern Israel two houses were demolished, displacing more then 15 people.

All the demolitions and confiscations occurred on grounds of lacking an Israeli-issued building permit. Most of the demolished structures supported agricultural, herding and commercial livelihoods.

Full list of Demolitions:

• On 3 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished five houses in Al Walaja, Bethlehem, displacing 17 people from three households, and affecting a further 12 people from two households. While the village lies within the Jerusalem municipality it is separated from the rest of the city by the Separation Wall.
• On 3 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a Palestinian-owned house, displacing its 15 inhabitants for the second time, in the Manshiyet Zabda village in northern Israel. The Israeli authorities demolished the house a second time after residents of the area had rebuilt it following its first demolition. Israeli bulldozers uprooted olive trees surrounding the house and razed the house to the ground after destroying its contents.
• On 3 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished one structure in Umm ad Daraj, Hebron, affecting ten people from one household.
• On 3 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished one structure in Qawawis, Hebron, affecting 13 people from one household.
• On 4 September, 2018, Israeli forces confiscated one structure in Qawawis, Hebron, affecting 13 people from one household.
• On 4 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished two structures in Fheidat, East Jerusalem, displacing a family of six.
• On 4 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished and then confiscated one structure in Humsa-Basaliya, Nablus, affecting five people from one household.
• On 4 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished one structure in South Anata Bedouins (Wa’ar al Beik), East Jerusalem, affecting 14 people from two households.
• On 5 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a house in Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem, displacing a family of ten.
• On 5 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a house in Ras al‘Amud, East Jerusalem, displacing a family of five.
• On 5 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished five structures, including a house, in Deir al Qilt, Jericho, displacing a family of nine. the Bedouin community of Deir al Qilt is located in an area designated as a firing zone, the small community suffers from constant harassment by the Israeli forces, and faces numerous demolitions.
• On 6 September, Israeli forces demolished a house in Hurah, a governmental township near Be’er Sheva. South Israel.
• On 6 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished the entire unrecognised Bedouin village of al-ʿArāgīb, Naqab desert, Southern Israel, for the 133rd
• On 7 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a Palestinian waste recycling plant in Awarta, south of Nablus city.
• On 10 September, 2018, a family from Al Walaja, Bethlehem, self-demolished their home after receiving a demolition order from the Israeli authorities ordering them to either demolish their homes or pay the high fee for the municipality to do so. Part of the house was already demolished the previous week by Israeli forces
• On 13 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished and confiscated five structures in Khan al Ahmar-Abu al Helu, East Jerusalem. The structures were built as part of an action taken out by activists, who sought to establish a new neighbourhood called ‘al Wadi al-Ahamr’, in the village that is under threat of immediate demolition.
• On 14 September, 2018, a family from the unrecognised Bedouin village of Sa’wah, Naqab desert, Southern Israel, self-demolished their home, after receiving a demolition order from the Israeli authorities.
• On 16 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a house in al-Jawarish neighbourhood in the city of Ramla, Central Israel,
• On 20 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished four structures in Rantis, Ramallah, including a house under construction, affecting eight people from one household.
• On 20 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished a house in Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem, displacing a family of four, and affecting a further four people.
• On 21 September, 2018, a family from Beit Hanina, East Jerusalem, self-demolished their home after receiving a demolition order from the Israeli authorities. The house was built in 2006, and about two years ago the family received the demolition order. They managed to postpone the demolition several times until the court ordered them to self-demolish it until the begining of September or pay for the municipality to do so. In addition to the demolition the court fines the family 50,000 NIS ($13,000) for building their home with out an Israeli-issued permit. The family had their home demolished in 2004, now, the family of 14 is left homeless for the second time.
• On 26 September, 2018, Israeli forces demolished the main road leading to the village of Nabi Samuel. East Jerusalem. For many years, the village has been isolated by Israel’s Separation Wall, with its 250 residents not being able to leave or enter it except through a military checkpoint. The village itself lacks basic utilities and services.

Communities under threat of displacement:

Four Homes Demolished in Walajeh Signal Threat for a Whole Part of the Village

(report by IR AMIM)

“This morning (3 September, 2018) teams from the District Committee, accompanied by large numbers of border police, demolished four homes in the village of Walajeh. The houses were located in in Ein Juweza, the residential part of Walajeh annexed to Jerusalem. Roughly ½ of the 100 homes in Ein Juweza are under threat of demolition, with most of the demolition orders issued by the Israeli authorities over the past two years. Every few months new demolition orders are distributed there, such that the number of threatened homes is steadily increasing. Distribution of demolition orders and the demolitions themselves are conducted by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee (under the authority of the Ministry of Finance).

Today’s demolitions were rapidly scheduled following the unsuccessful conclusion of legal proceedings aimed at cancelling the demolition orders.

One of the homes demolished was under construction while the other three were home to four families.

Some 150 local residents gathered inside and around one of the homes. This non-violent resistance delayed the demolition by some two hours, until border police fired tear gas and rubber-coated steel bullets at the residents, violently removing those inside the home. Two young Palestinians were subsequently taken to the hospital, one due to injury from a rubber-coated steel bullet and the other after a soldier hit him in the head with a rifle butt. One Israeli woman was lightly injured from stones thrown by Palestinians.

Over the past two years Israel has demolished 15 homes in the Jerusalem section of the village. Residents of Walajeh cannot receive building permits as the Jerusalem municipality has refused for over 50 years to prepare a master plan for the village. The master plan prepared by local residents at their own expense was also rejected by planning authorities. Since 2016 the pace of home demolitions in Walajeh has quickened, although the village itself is cut off from Jerusalem by the Separation Barrier.

Today’s demolitions clarify that Israeli authorities are determined to implement a policy that will result in erasure of the Jerusalem section of  Walajeh, where a majority of its 100 homes were built after 1967 and thus lack building permits. Some 800 people are thus likely to be forcibly displaced.

Today’s events highlight the danger of ongoing Israeli policies: if opposition is not registered, Israel is likely to forcibly displace many hundreds of Palestinians. If Walajeh residents attempt to defend their homes, dangerous clashes could result.

While refusing to allow building in Walajeh, in the area around the village Israel is promoting construction of thousands of housing units for Israelis on lands – some of which were confiscated from Walajeh – in the settlements of Gilo and Har Gilo. To the north of the village, within the Green Line and on lands that belonged to Walajeh until 1948, a construction plan of over 4,000 housing units is being advanced. These construction plans, together with the national park declared on al-Walajeh land in 2013, are meant to create an Israeli continuum between Jerusalem and the Gush Etzion settlements surrounding Bethlehem. This morning’s demolitions in Walajeh are an inherent part of the policy to transform this area into an Israeli space.”

The ongoing case of Khan al Ahmar

(Report by the Legal Task Force)

The Palestinian Bedouin community of Khan al Ahmar- Abu al Helu, is located in Area C of the Jerusalem governorate. The community, which is home to 35 families comprising 188 people, more than half of whom are children, are at risk of mass demolition and forcible transfer. The UN has previously called on the Israeli authorities to end its demolition and relocation plans for the community, which would run counter to its obligations under international law.

Update on the Al Khan al Ahmar ruling, 5 September, 2018

“Regarding the petition dealing with the relocation, the Court rejected the petition noting that the State does not intend to forcibly move the inhabitants to the designated relocation site. Rather, the State provides the site as an entitlement rather than as an obligation. However, the (Khan al Ahmar) area will be cordoned off during the duration of the demolition. Belongings and persons will be removed. Inhabitants may be allowed to return to the site, but will not be permitted to rebuild in that area.

Regarding the main petition dealing with the spatial plan for the current site and the question of land ownership, the Court states that the matter was addressed in the previous May ruling, which is final. The Court states clearly that there is no ground to submit a spatial plan after a ruling has been handed; and to revisit or suspend a decision based on a spatial plan. The Court goes on to contest the assertion that the land is privately owned and has been inappropriately requisitioned, noting that if that was the case this should have been presented in earlier litigation.

Regarding the alternative (relocation) sites proposed by the State, the Court states that the current available and sustainable option is in Jahalin West (Abu Dis), including the school that has been constructed there. The Court notes that the State has documented in writing what it will provide after the demolition to those inhabitants that will proceed to Jahalin West, including a 60sqm tent per family, while in tandem looking at the possibility of developing a second relocation site east of Jericho. The Court regrets that the petitioners have rejected that offer.

The Court concludes that there is no doubt that the Khan al Ahmar encampment was illegally constructed; and that there is no ground to intervene in or suspend the execution of demolition orders; and equally no ground to intervene in the decision of how/when the orders should be executed. By that, the Court rejects the Regavim petition, asking the Military Commander to execute forthwith.

The Court therefore upheld its May 2018 ruling.

The order nisi provided on the 5th of July will be rescinded in 7 days. It is up to the discretion of the Military Commander how/when he wants to proceed with the demolition after this period.

There are other additional points made by Justice Meltzer, including:

• In the Amona case (evacuation of an Israeli outpost), he suggested monetary compensation by the State to the Amona evacuees (Israeli settlers); and suggested that such an arrangement could apply here in providing reparations to those who have contributed to the construction of the school that will now be demolished, as the alternative school in Jahalin West may not be sufficient compensation. He therefore suggests that donors could be entitled for monetary compensation, subject to negotiations or a legal proceeding.
• He reiterates that Court decision does not dictate a specific timeframe for the execution of the demolition orders

Justice Baron noted:

• That the State clarified there is no intention to build in the Khan al Ahmar site following the demolition (as the State had argued that the village’s proximity to the road created a security risk).
• And that should the State build (settlement units) there, the Khan al Ahmar villagers could bring this case back to the Court.”

On 23 September, the Israeli authorities officially warned the residents of Khan al Ahmar-Abu al Helu community that they must self-demolish their homes and other structures by 1 October, 2018 otherwise the authorities will do so. The warning follows a final ruling by the Israeli High Court of Justice on 5 September allowing the demolitions to proceed. The warning also notifies residents that the authorities will provide assistance to those abiding by the order, including transportation to a relocation site. In the meantime, on 14 September, the authorities blocked the main dirt road leading to the community, triggering clashes with activists, and, on 21 September, denied access of a mobile health clinic to the community.”

Legal updates on punitive home demolitions

Israeli military decides against home demolition after HaMoked’s intervention

“Protecting the rights of innocent family members threatened with the demolition of their homes as punishment for the acts of others is among the most demanding of HaMoked’s activities. Because Israel’s High Court of Justice has backed this practice ostensibly to deter attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, it is very difficult to reverse a decision by the military to carry out this unlawful collective punishment. Fortunately, we do occasionally succeed in sparing family members this traumatic experience, as in the case described in the update below.

On April 2, 2018, the military announced its intention to demolish the home of the suspected assailant in a stabbing attack which took place on March 18, 2018 in the Old City of Jerusalem, resulting in the death of an Israeli citizen. The suspected assailant was killed in the attack. His parents, three siblings, wife and three minor children live in the home that was slated for demolition.

HaMoked submitted an objection against the demolition order, and on September 5, 2018, the military announced that, having reviewed the circumstances of the case, it decided not to demolish the house.

HaMoked stresses that demolishing the homes of people who commit attacks (or are suspected of doing so) constitutes collective punishment, contrary to international law and to the basic principle in every legal system (including Israeli law) according to which a person cannot be punished for acts he or she did not commit. Home demolitions do not replace criminal punishment; in most cases, the people to whom the attacks are attributed are either imprisoned or killed. The people most harmed by punitive home demolitions are the residents of the demolished homes, who are not suspected of any wrongdoing

HAMOKED: Punitive home demolitions 2014 – present

Updated summary on punitive home demolitions from July 2014 to 20 September 2018

In 2014 Israel resumed its practice of carrying out punitive home demolitions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, after refraining from using this method almost entirely during the preceding decade.

Since July 2014, the military has demolished 54 homes either completely or partially. Over 300 people had lived in the demolished homes.

The declared goal of punitive home demolitions is to deter potential assailants, by harming the relatives of Palestinians who have committed attacks against Israelis or are suspected of doing so. But in practice, innocent people are harmed as a matter of official policy, the effectivity of which is highly questionable even according to Israel itself. Home demolitions do not replace criminal punishment; in most cases, the people to whom the attacks are attributed are either imprisoned or killed. Those most harmed by punitive home demolitions are the residents of the demolished homes, who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. It is therefore evident that home demolitions constitute collective punishment, contrary to international law and to the basic principle in every legal system (including Israeli law) according to which a person cannot be punished for acts he or she did not commit.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from the author.

Very few Americans know who Sheldon Adelson is and fewer still appreciate that, as America’s leading political donor, when he speaks the Republican Party listens. By virtue of his largesse, he has been able to direct GOP policy in the Middle East in favor of Israel, which might well be regarded as his true home while the United States exists more as a faithful friend that can be produced at intervals whenever Israel finds itself in need of a bit of cash or political cover.

Adelson’s recent successes in translating his political donations into policy favorable to Israel have included shifting the US Embassy to Jerusalem, cutting aid to Palestinians, ending the Iranian nuclear monitoring agreement and closing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s diplomatic office in Washington. All those Trump Administration measures were reportedly worked out privately by Adelson speaking directly with the president.

Adelson’s activities in buying politicians reflect what he believes, he reportedly having said that “there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.” Nor does his world view include much concern for the country that has sheltered him and made him wealthy. He served in the US Army in World War 2 and has said that he regrets having done so, as he would rather have worn an Israeli army uniform. He also expressed his desire that his son might become an Israeli Army sniper.

Adelson benefits from his exceptional access to the White House to the detriment of actual American interests. A New York Times article “Sheldon Adelson Sees a Lot to Like in Trump’s Washington,” states that he “enjoys a direct line to the president” and meets the president monthly “in private in-person meetings and phone conversations.” He has been delighted with the openly expressed threats emanating from the Administration’s key foreign and national security policy spokesmen regarding Iran. He would like to see the United States go to war with the Iranians to destroy their government and bring about some kind of regime change, and, judging from recent developments, he just might get what he seeks, which could easily have catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.

Adelson is somewhat unhinged on the issue of Iran and has even called for dropping a nuclear bomb on a desert region of the country as a negotiating tactic to show “we mean business” so Washington could then “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.” If Iran continued to resist, Adelson would to drop the next one on Tehran. If Tehran were to be nuked millions of Iranians would die, which doesn’t bother Adelson one bit. Such a development would, in Adelson’s opinion, be good for Israel, which is his primary concern.

Adelson’s power over policy makers is also evident in what the White House does not do. Israeli snipers have shot dead at least 143 unarmed Arab demonstrators in Gaza without so much as a word of condemnation coming out of Washington. Indeed, the Donald Trump Ambassador to Israel David Friedman has gone out of his way to defend the killings and also to support the expansion of the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Adelson is also widely believed to have had a hand in personnel changes in the White House. He has used his money and influence to advance the careers of United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo while also arranging the removal of H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson for “being anti-Israeli” and not sufficiently willing to go to war with Iran. Defense Secretary James Mattis, the only actual adult remaining in the room when foreign policy is discussed, is believed to be the next target for removal.

How does Adelson do it? Money talks. He is worth an estimated $35 billion. His fortune came from casinos both in the US and in China, which some might consider to be promotion of vice. To buy and maintain the Republican support for right wing Zionist policies he has donated what is for him pocket change, $55 million so far this year in support of GOP candidates in the Midterm elections. In 2016, he gave large sums to the Trump campaign and to other Republicans, donating $35 million to the former and $55 million to two top Republican PACs — the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund.

In America’s corrupt political culture, a monster like Sheldon Adelson can buy both a White House and Congress on behalf of a foreign government for a paltry $150 million or so. It is a reasonable investment for him given his views, as through him Israel is able to control a large slice of American foreign policy while also receiving billions of dollars each year from the US Treasury. And for those who think it would be different if the Democrats were in charge, think again. The Democrats have their own Adelson. His name is Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media magnate who has said he is a “one issue guy and my issue is Israel.” He is also the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Flickr.

Norway has become the first country to ban deforestation. The Norwegian Parliament pledged May 26 that the government’s public procurement policy will be deforestation-free.

Any product that contributes to deforestation will not be used in the Scandinavian country. The pledge was recommended by Norwegian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Energy and Environment as part of the Action Plan on Nature Diversity. Rainforest Foundation Norway was the main lobbying power behind this recommendation and has worked for years to bring the pledge to existence.

“This is an important victory in the fight to protect the rainforest,” Nils Hermann Ranum, head of policy and campaign at Rainforest Foundation Norway said in a statement. “Over the last few years, a number of companies have committed to cease the procurement of goods that can be linked to destruction of the rainforest. Until now, this has not been matched by similar commitments from governments. Thus, it is highly positive that the Norwegian state is now following suit and making the same demands when it comes to public procurements.”

Source: World Wildlife Fund

Norway’s action plan also includes a request from parliament that the government exercise due care for the protection of biodiversity in its investments through Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global.

“Other countries should follow Norway’s leadership, and adopt similar zero deforestation commitments,” Ranum said. “In particular, Germany and the UK must act, following their joint statement at the UN Climate Summit.”

Germany and the UK joined Norway in pledging at the 2014 UN Climate Summit to “promote national commitments that encourage deforestation-free supply chains,” through public procurement policies and to sustainably source products like palm oil, soy, beef and timber, the Huffington Post reported.

Beef, palm oil, soy and wood products in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papau New Guinea were responsible for 40 percent of deforestation between 2000 and 2011. Those seven countries were also responsible for 44 percent of carbon emissions, Climate Action reported.

Another Step in the Right Direction

Norway’s recent pledge is yet another step the country has taken to combat deforestation. The Scandinavian country funds several projects worldwide.

The Norwegian government announced a $250 million commitment to protect Guyana’s forest, WorldWatch Institute reported. The South American country, which has its forests zoned for logging, received the money over a four-year period from 2011 to 2015.

“Our country is at a stage where our population is no less materialistic [than industrialized countries] and no less wanting to improve their lives,” Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, Guyana’s minister of foreign affairs, said. “We want to continue our development, but we can’t do that without a form of payment.”

The partnership is part of the UN’s initiative Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, which was launched in 2008. Guyana is unique among its counterparts in the initiative because the country’s forests don’t face significant deforestation pressure.

Source: World Wildlife Fund

In 2015, Norway paid $1 billion to Brazil, home to 60 percent of the Amazon forest, for completing a 2008 agreement between the two countries to prevent deforestation, according to mongabay.com. Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon decreased more than 75 percent over the last decade, representing the single biggest emissions cut in that time period. The deal helped save more than 33,000 square miles of rainforest from clear-cutting, National Geographic reported.

The partnership was praised by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

“The partnership between Brazil and Norway through the Amazon Fund shows intensified support for one of most impressive climate change mitigation actions of the past decades. This is an outstanding example of the kind of international collaboration we need to ensure the future sustainability of our planet.”

The Amazon has lost around 17 percent of its trees in the last 50 years, according to World Wildlife Fund.

This TED talk explains how Brazil reached its goal. Watch this video.

Norway doesn’t just focus on South American forests. The country is also hard at work in Africa and other regions of the planet.

Liberia, with the help of Norway, became the first nation in Africa to stop cutting down trees in return for aid, the BBC reported. The deal involves Norway paying the West African country $150 million through 2020 to stop deforestation.

“We hope Liberia will be able to cut emissions and reduce poverty at the same time,” Jens Frolich Holte, a political adviser to the Norwegian government, said.

Liberia is home to 43 percent of the Upper Guinean forest and the last populations of western chimpanzees, forest elephants and leopards. The country agreed to place 30 percent or more of its forests under protection by 2020.

The Case for Deforestation Bans

Forests cover 31 percent of the land on Earth. They are the planet’s figurative lungs, producing oxygen and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Forests also provide homes to people and much of the world’s wildlife.

Fire burning in peat moss area in Central Kalimantan Indonesia. (Source: World Wildlife Fund)

There are 1.6 million people who rely on forests for food, fresh water, clothing, medicine and shelter, according to the World Wildlife Fund. But people also see forests as an obstacle they must remove. Around 46,000 to 58,000 square miles of forest are lost each year—a rate equal to 48 football fields every minute.

Deforestation is estimated to contribute around 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Not only does deforestation contribute to climate change, it can also disrupt livelihoods and natural cycles, the World Wildlife Fund said. Removal of trees can disrupt the water cycle of the region, resulting in changes in precipitation and river flow, and contribute to erosion.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

According to a statement released by Russian analytical center SovEkon, Turkey will purchase 30,000 tons of high-protein wheat from Russia and will pay in rubles, the country’s currency.

The price of wheat is set at 17,000 rubles per ton, the statement added and emphasized that Russia and Turkey’s losses ensuing from exchange conversion will be minimized thanks to trade in national currencies.

The move comes after President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan recently announced that Turkey will increase the use of national currencies in trade transactions with important commercial partners like Russia.

Erdoğan’s initiative was welcomed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who highlighted that the use of local currencies in bilateral trade with Turkey will mitigate the impacts of currency volatility.

From July to September, Turkey imported 1.2 million tons of wheat from Russia.

The sanction policies by the U.S., particularly related to Turkey, Iran and Russia, have recently sent the national currencies of these three countries to historic lows, therefore emerged the issue of looking for an alternative medium for financial transactions that can decrease the domination of the dollar in global trade.

After the Tehran summit on Sept. 7, Turkey, Russia and Iran agreed to use their local currencies for trade between the three countries, according to Central Bank of Iran Governor Abdolnaser Hemati.

Hemati had said that a meeting with the administrators of the Turkish and Russian central banks is expected in the near future and he hopes that the agreed topics will come into effect quickly.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Daily Sabah.

Seeking to avoid complying with the consequences of previously-signed treaties, the US announced that they are outright withdrawing from multiple agreements today. This included the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, and the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

The 1955 Treaty of Amity was a little known treaty signed by the US and Iran after the 1953 CIA coup. The treaty was cited in an Iranian lawsuit aiming to prevent parts of US sanctions being enforced, and Iran won that lawsuit on Wednesday.

It is unclear if the 1955 treaty was really that big of a part of the court ruling, which merely said the US has to exempt humanitarian goods from the sanctions. The US decision to withdraw from the treaty will, however, likely be used to claim the ruling doesn’t apply anymore.

The Vienna Convention, by contrast, is a far-reaching diplomatic agreement, which the US was an early signatory of. The protocol the US withdrew from on Tuesday was one in which disputes between nations are to be resolved peacefully on the international stage.

US officials aren’t keen on that, because it might require them to settle disputes instead of just endlessly escalating them with new sanctions and other measures. The Palestinians are seeking redress of disputes with the US centering on the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Though the US was an early signatory to this provision, according to John Bolton their real objection is that the Palestinians were allowed to sign at all. The State of Palestine signed the protocol earlier this year, but the US doesn’t recognize them as a state, and considers them to have no rights to resolve such disputes in international courts.

Bolton argued further that Iran is politicizing the International Court of Justice, and that the US views the court as ineffective and is moving away from complying with ICJ rulings in general.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

More than any other presidency in modern history, Donald Trump’s has been a veritable sociopolitical wrecking ball, deliberately stoking conflict by playing to xenophobic and racist currents in American society and debasing its political discourse. That fact has been widely discussed. But Trump’s attacks on the system of the global U.S. military presence and commitments have gotten far less notice.

He has complained bitterly, both in public and in private meetings with aides, about the suite of permanent wars that the Pentagon has been fighting for many years across the Greater Middle East and Africa, as well as about deployments and commitments to South Korea and NATO. This has resulted in an unprecedented struggle between a sitting president and the national security state over a global U.S. military empire that has been sacrosanct in American politics since early in the Cold War.

And now Bob Woodward’s “Fear: Trump in the White House” has provided dramatic new details about that struggle.

Trump’s Advisers Take Him Into ‘the Tank’

Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S. military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of his “victory tour” in December 2016, Trump vowed,

“We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.”

Instead of investing in wars, he said, he would invest in rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure.

In a meeting with his national security team in the summer of 2017, in which Secretary of Defense James Mattis recommended new military measures against Islamic State affiliates in North Africa, Trump expressed his frustration with the unending wars.

“You guys want me to send troops everywhere,” Trump said, according to a Washington Post report. “What’s the justification?”

Mattis replied,

“Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” to which Trump angrily retorted that the same argument could be made about virtually any country on the planet.

Trump had even given ambassadors the power to call a temporary halt to drone strikes, according to the Post story, causing further consternation at the Pentagon.

Trump’s national security team became so alarmed about his questioning of U.S. military engagements and forward deployment of troops that they felt something had to be done to turn him around. Mattis proposed to take Trump away from the White House into “the Tank” at the Pentagon, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff held their meetings, hoping to drive home their arguments more effectively.

It was there, on July 20, 2017, that Mattis, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior officials sought to impress on Trump the vital importance of maintaining existing U.S. worldwide military commitments and deployments. Mattis used the standard Bush and Obama administration rhetoric of globalism, according to the meeting notes provided to Woodward. He asserted that the “rules-based, international democratic order”—the term used to describe the global structure of U.S. military and military power—had brought security and prosperity. Tillerson, ignoring decades of U.S. destabilizing wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, chimed in, saying,

“This is what has kept the peace for 70 years.”

Trump said nothing, according to Woodward’s account, but simply shook his head in disagreement. He eventually steered the discussion to an issue that was particularly irritating to him: U.S. military and economic relations with South Korea.

“We spend $3.5 billion a year to have troops in South Korea,” Trump complained. “I don’t know why they’re there. … Let’s bring them all home!”

At that, Trump’s chief of staff at the time, Reince Priebus, recognizing that the national security team’s effort to get control of Trump’s opposition to their wars and troop deployments had been an utter failure, called a halt to the meeting.

In September 2017, even as Trump threatened in tweets to destroy North Korea, he was privately hammering aides over the U.S. troop presence in South Korea and repeatedly expressing a determination to remove them, Woodward’s account reveals.

Those Trump complaints prompted H.R. McMaster, then the national security adviser, to call for a National Security Council meeting on the issue on Jan. 19. Trump again demanded,

“What do we get by maintaining a massive military presence in the Korean peninsula?”

And he linked that question to the broader issue of the United States paying for the defense of other states in Asia, the Middle East and NATO.

Mattis portrayed the troop presence in South Korea as a great security bargain.

“Forward-positioned troops provide the least costly means of achieving our security objectives,” he said, “and withdrawal would lead our allies to lose all confidence in us.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, argued that South Korea was reimbursing the United States $800 million a year out of the total cost of $2 billion, thus subsidizing the United States for something it would do in its own interests anyway.

But such arguments made no impression on Trump, who saw no value in having troops abroad at a time when the United States itself was crumbling.

“We have [spent] $7 trillion in the Middle East,” Trump said at the end of the meeting. “We can’t even muster $1 trillion for domestic infrastructure.”

Trump’s belief that U.S. troops should be pulled out of South Korea was reinforced by the unexpected political-diplomatic developments in North and South Korea in early 2018. Trump responded positively to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s offer of a summit meeting and signaled his readiness to negotiate with Kim on an agreement that would both denuclearize North Korea and bring peace to the Korean peninsula.

Before the Singapore summit with Kim, Trump ordered the Pentagon to develop options for drawing down those U.S. troops. That idea was viewed by the news media and most of the national security elite as completely unacceptable, but it has long been well known among military and intelligence specialists on Korea that U.S. troops are not needed—either to deter North Korea or to defend against an attack across the DMZ.

Trump’s willingness to practice personal diplomacy with Kim and to envision the end or serious attenuation of the U.S. troop deployment in South Korea was undoubtedly driven in part by his ego, but it could not have happened without his rejection of the ideology of national security that had dominated Washington elites for generations.

Fights Over Syria and Afghanistan

Trump was impatient to end all three major wars he had inherited from Barack Obama: Afghanistan and the wars against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Woodward recounts how Trump lectured McMaster, Porter, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in July 2017 on their return from a golf weekend about how tired he was of those wars. “We should just declare victory, end the wars and bring our troops home,” he told them, repeating—probably unconsciously—the same political tactic that had been urged by Vermont Sen. George Aiken in 1966 for ending the U.S. war in Vietnam.

Even after a massively destructive U.S.-NATO bombing campaign forced Islamic State to abandon its capital in the city of Raqqa, Syria, in October 2017, Trump’s national security team insisted on keeping U.S. troops in Syria indefinitely. In a mid-November briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Mattis declared that preventing the return of Islamic State was a “longer-term objective” of the U.S. military, and that U.S. forces would remain in Syria to help establish conditions for a diplomatic solution. “We’re not going to walk away before the Geneva process has traction,” Mattis said.

But Mattis and Tillerson had not changed Trump’s mind about Syria. In early April 2018, the Pentagon gave Trump a paper that focused almost entirely on different options for remaining in Syria, treating full withdrawal as a clearly unacceptable option. In a tense meeting, Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dunford warned that complete withdrawal would allow Iran and Russia to fill the vacuum—as though Trump shared their assumption that such an outcome was unthinkable. Instead Trump told them he wanted U.S. troops to wrap the war with Islamic State in six months, according to a CNN account from Pentagon sources. And when Mattis and other officials warned that the timeline was too short, “Trump responded by telling his team to just get it done.”

A few days later, Trump declared publicly,

“We’re coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon we’re coming out.”

After John Bolton entered the White House as national security adviser in April, however, he persuaded Trump to view Syria in the context of the administration’s vendetta against Iran—at least for the time being. Bolton declared this week that U.S. troops would not leave Syria as long as Iranian troops serve outside Iranian borders. But Mattis contradicted Bolton, saying the troops remained in Syria to defeat Islamic State and that the commitment was “not open-ended.”

Trump had been calling for an end to the war in Afghanistan for years before his election, and he felt passionate about getting out. And Woodward reveals that the NSC’s chief of staff, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, supported the idea of U.S. withdrawal. When the National Security Council met in July 2017 to discuss Afghanistan, Trump interrupted McMaster’s initial presentation to explained why the war was “a disaster”: Nonexistent “ghost soldiers” in the Afghan army were being used to rip off the United States, as corrupt Afghan leaders milked the war and U.S. assistance to make money. When Tillerson tried to place Afghanistan in a “regional context,” Trump responded,

“But how many more deaths? How many more lost limbs? How much longer are we going to be there?”

The Pentagon and McMaster nevertheless pressed on with a plan to increase the U.S. military presence. At a climactic meeting in mid-August on Afghanistan, according to the account in Woodward’s book, McMaster told Trump he had no choice but to step up the war by adding 4,000 troops. The reason? It was necessary to prevent al-Qaida or Islamic State from using Afghan territory to launch terror attacks on the United States or Europe.

Trump retorted angrily that the generals were “the architects of this mess” and that they have were “making it worse,” by asking him to add more troops to “something I don’t believe in.” Then Trump folded his arms and declared, “I want to get out. And you’re telling me the answer is to get deeper in.”

Mattis spelled out the argument in terms that he hoped would finally get to Trump. He warned that what had happened to Obama when he withdrew forces from Iraq prematurely would happen to Trump if he didn’t go along with the Pentagon’s proposed new strategy.

“I still think you’re wrong” [about the war], Trump said, [it] “hasn’t gotten us anything.” But he went along with Mattis and announced that he had been convinced to go against his own “instincts” by approving the 4,000-troop increase.

He was being cowed by the same fear of being accused of responsibility for possible future consequences of defeat in a war—a fear that had led Lyndon Johnson to abandon his own strong resistance to a full-scale U.S. intervention in Vietnam in mid-1965 and Barack Obama to accept a major escalation in Afghanistan that he had argued against in White House meetings.

Trump announced a new strategy in which there would be no arbitrary timelines for withdrawal as there had been under Obama and no restrictions on commanders’ use of drones and conventional airstrikes. But since then, all accounts have agreed that the war is being lost to the Taliban, and Trump will certainly be forced to revisit the policy as the evidence of failure creates new political pressures on the administration. 

Trump’s economic worldview, which some have called mercantilist, poses economic dangers to the United States. And given Trump’s multiple serious personal and political failings—including his adoption of a policy of regime change in Iran urged on him by Bolton and by Trump’s extremist Zionist campaign donor Sheldon Adelson—he may finally give up his resistance to the multiple permanent U.S. wars.

But Trump’s unorthodox approach has already emboldened him to challenge the essential logic of the U.S. military empire more than any previous president. And the final years of his administration will certainly bring further struggles over the issues on which he has jousted repeatedly with those in charge of the empire.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. His latest book is Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Featured image is from Flickr.

Britain is already aiming to be a tax haven – its trajectory has been in the making for decades. Its corporate tax rate has been on a steady decline since the late 1970s. This coincided with Thatcher’s neoliberal revolution that for the following 40 years would eventually accelerate poverty, homelessness, inequality, societal division and a crisis of daily life for half the population. In just one example of despair for the most vulnerable, the child poverty trajectory is set to increase 50 per cent by 2020. Compared to other developed countries the UK has a very unequal distribution of income. Out of the 30 OECD countries in the LIS data set, the UK is the seventh most unequal, and within this data set it is the fourth most unequal in Europe. But a post-Brexit world promises more of the same.

Britain’s corporate tax rate sits at 119 out of 159 listed tax paying countries around the world, behind countries as economically diverse as Canada, China, Germany, Turkey, USA, Russia, France, Chad, Zambia and Australia.

Britain also has the lowest corporate tax rate of any of the major economies in Europe and the third lowest in the G20 of major industrialised nations. The two lowest countries on that list are Switzerland and Singapore and the UK has already threatened to match even them post-Brexit.

It is no coincidence then that poverty and homelessness in Britain are on the rise, that social services and local communities are being decimated along with the financial implosion of local authorities, health care and education. Low tax regimes create inequality, discrimination and division.

Here is an article by the Tax Justice Network. Whilst it refers to much a smaller territory of Britain and its population, it clearly demonstrates the negative effects of putting corporations, money and profit ahead of people and their communities.

Leaving Jersey – an island cursed by finance

By Nick Shazon: The Tax Justice Network was set up in 2003, after three Jerseyfolk, Pat Lucas, Jean Andersson and Frank Norman, traveled to London to see John Christensen, the island’s former economic adviser. Christensen had left the island in 1998, appalled at the corruption and malfeasance he had encountered every day, and they knew it. They pleaded with him to to “rescue our island” from offshore finance.  Christensen recalls:

They were talking about liberating the island. I said that if you want to do that, you have to take on the entire issue of tax havens and the global economy. They grasped that pretty fast, and asked: ‘if that is what it takes, how do we set about doing that?’ I said that we will have to create a mammoth global campaign to raise public awareness. It was clear to me by the time they left, three hours later, that this was the call to arms.”

At first glance, it may seem odd that people on a small island should want to eliminate this industry which was tapping into a vast and growing reservoir of global wealth: the world’s billionaires and multinationals who had been flocking to the island to live or set up shop.

The numbers, at least on the surface, are impressive: Jersey Finance, the island’s main lobbying arm, puts it this way:

GVA [Gross Value Added, a proxy for Gross Domestic Product] per head of population in Jersey in 2016 was £40,200 (current year values) and was 53% greater than in the UK.”

Our emphasis added. Or you could look at international comparisons, ranking the richest countries according to GDP per capita: if you scroll down the lists (here’s one), most of those at the top are small tax havens of one kind or another: Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macau, Luxembourg, Bermuda, and . . . Jersey.  The wealth attracted by a large financial centre, divided by a small population, can generate large numbers.

Jersey is, it seems, so much richer than the UK, and than most other countries – why ever would locals want to kill the goose that laid such golden eggs?

Well, a new blog by Bram Wanrooij, a teacher who recently decided to leave the island, gives a clue. Something is badly amiss here. For one thing, there’s the inequality:

I have never been so aware of wealth discrepancies as I have in Jersey. And that says a lot, as I have lived in places like Kenya and Sudan when I was younger.

The system of inviting so-called ‘high-value residents’ (an utterly disgusting phrase) openly ridicules the attempts to redistribute wealth fairly . . . This undermines a sense of community and actually sends out a message that wealth accumulation is an individual pursuit and has nothing to do with being part of society. Jersey’s official message is: ‘Make your money and then ‘protect’ yourself from the rest of society. We will facilitate this sabotage.’ On this island, it is nurtured and even celebrated.”

But inequality has a counterpart: massive, widespread hardship, affecting much of the island’s population.

In the six years I’ve lived here, my family has had to move six times and every time we had to rent a house which was slightly beyond our budget, even though both my wife and I are hard workers with honest professions. I have seen qualified, talented people leave because of this, a phenomenon which makes no sense, neither on a social, nor an economic level. . .

Why are there so many charities in Jersey? It’s only because our government has shedded some of its core responsibilities”

All this is backed up by other analysts:

Households today with a mean net income are unable to service a mortgage affordably on the median purchase price of a house of any size, that is, if they can even get the deposit together. Despite this, for the Jersey housing market it’s “boom time”.

It’s ferociously expensive to get off the islands too:

Jersey has quickly become a financial and geographical prison for middle and low earners.”

Those GDP figures are, from the perspective of middle-class and lower-income earners, meaningless. A miniscule billionaire class will heavily skew the data to make average incomes look stellar. The majority aren’t getting the benefit. (And in any case GDP is a hopeless measure of the average prosperity of a tax haven, because it includes all sorts of whirling financial flows that wheel in and out of Jersey, untaxed, rootless, hardly touching the sides.)

Those shiny goose eggs aren’t made of gold after all; look closely and you’ll see a cuckoo in the nest.  This is the Finance Curse in action.  All this money doesn’t seem to be making people’s lives better. It’s not just that a pampered elite creams it all off before the population gets a look-in. It seems to be worse than that: most people are worse off than if the financial sector hadn’t existed.  If you can’t even get this right in a small economy, where one ought to be able to share the incoming billions among a tiny population, what hope is there for a larger country like Britain?

In fact, more and more research is steadily emerging to show that oversized financial centres harm the countries that host them.

In short, Jersey’s tax haven policies aren’t just inflicting damage on other countries – they are inflicting damage on Jerseyfolk too (and while you’re here, listen to our August 2018 Taxcast to hear echoes of exactly the same story from Bermuda.)

The personal angle.

In the goldfish bowl of Jersey’s small island society, the brutal power relationships entrenched by the dominance of offshore finance make all this much, much worse. And so much of this happens at a personal level.   John Christensen, who spent much of his life in Jersey, has felt this through bitter experience. When he ran the Jersey film society they showed a German film called the Nasty Girl (Das schreckliche Mädchen), based on the true story of a young woman who began probing into her local town’s Nazi past, and became the victim of a terrifying subterranean response. 

“Even before leaving Jersey I’ve felt that anyone who talked about what was really going on there in any critical way was treated as a Schreckliche Mädchen. Since leaving Jersey I’ve felt like the Nasty Boy: the sniping, the constant attacks, being described as a Traitor.”

If you don’t believe him, you can watch this actually happening on camera. While filming in Jersey for a Danish television documentary about some Jersey-related skulduggery, a stranger approaches and asks “why you are always trying to stab your island in the back?”  This two-minute video conveys clearly the personal pain that can be involved, tied up with questions of family and honour and deceit and low allegations.

Christensen continued:

In the case of one of my brothers, it’s completely poisoned the relationship. He was chairman of Jersey finance, and a former head of a Jersey trust company. Their senior officers were going around telling journalists I had nasty personal baggage, insinuating that I left because I was angry at not getting the top job – chief adviser to the government when they knew damned well that I never applied for it”

(For more on that ugly episode, see Oliver Bullough’s article on Jersey for The Guardian.)

Something rather similar happened to Patrick Muirhead, a BBC reporter who worked in local media for a while.

“In an island of 90,000 souls, one is only removed from another by the smallest step of separation. . . After I left, my integrity, professional ability and popularity were trashed by a hostile and defensive Jersey media and island population. . .The unwillingness to invite outsiders to probe or criticise is almost insurmountable.”

This culture of concealment helped cover up, among other things, a giant child abuse scandal.

Nobody is in any doubt that offshore finance has “captured” Jersey’s political system, its economy, and even its culture. It remains impossible to resist it. Paul Bisson, a local teacher who wrote a racy novel about corruption in Jersey, puts it as well as any.

It’s almost like we’ve surrendered part of our soul to finance.”

Perhaps an even better summary comes from one of the characters in his book, Marigold Dark. Please, Dear Reader, forgive the colourful language.

We all know that foreign money has the run of this place. But it’s quite another thing altogether to openly replace the Jersey flag with a set of splayed arse cheeks and a dollar sign.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

First published by GR on July 31, 2018

“Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. … Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

– PNAC planning document, September 2000 [1]

“We’re dealing with a diabolical agenda where the United States is intervening under the banner of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ or ‘Global War on Terrorism.’ In other words it is providing a legitimacy to a war of aggression, or a sequence of wars of aggression. And the public is led to believe somehow that these are humanitarian undertakings.”

– Professor Michel Chossudovsky, from his June 2018 speech in Regina.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Established in 1997, the Project for a New American Century is a Washington D.C. based organization dedicated to preserving the role of the United States as the pre-eminent power on Earth, and promoting America’s role of ‘global leadership’ and its ‘vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.’ [2]

Described as a neoconservative think tank, the PNAC highlighted four essential missions in a September 2000 planning document entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century. These include:

• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;” [3]

U.S. Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have clearly aligned their foreign policy trajectories according to the formula spelled out in the 2000 PNAC document. Author Nicolas Davies in a 2015 article reveals how, in spite of the end of the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R, overall U.S. military spending exploded in the years following the September 11, 2001 attacks. In fact, Democratic President Barrack Obama was responsible for the largest U.S. military budget since the Second World War. [4]

Professor Michel Chossudovsky has been tracking and analyzing the trajectory of U.S. military planning for the last two decades and has been at the forefront of dissecting the propaganda describing these projects as ‘self defense’ or a ‘humanitarian intervention.’ In June of 2018 he delivered a speech to the Regina Peace Council outlining his research and appealing for the re-invigoration of an anti-war movement that would confront what he considers to be a hegemonic project of world conquest, orchestrated by the U.S. and its Western allies.

The complete video of his talk is available here.

Video footage courtesy of Paul Graham.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He has served as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has acted as a consultant for several international organizations. He has authored numerous articles and eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), and The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia.

Please consider purchasing a copy of the book on which the lecture is based. The Globalization of War is available now at a discount price! To purchase your copy, please visit our store.  

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Text of Michel Chossudovsky’s address to the Regina Peace Council Panel, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 8, 2018. 

We are at the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

War is presented as a peace-making undertaking. The justification for these US-led wars is the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with a view to instilling (Trump style) Western “democracy” Worldwide.

Global warfare sustains the neoliberal agenda. War and globalization are intricately related.

What we are dealing with is an imperial project broadly serving global economic and financial interests including Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, the Biotech conglomerates, Big Pharma, The Global Narcotics Economy, the Media Conglomerates and the Information and Communication Technology Giants.

Also, September 11, 2001 followed by the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, also marks the official launch of the so-called “global war on terrorism” which has served as a justification for US-NATO led wars and interventions in the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia.

The Global War on Terrorism is Fake

Amply documented, Al Qaeda and its various affiliates including ISIS-Daesh are creations of US intelligence.

Pre-emptive Nuclear Doctrine

Meanwhile, a major shift in US nuclear doctrine has occurred with the adoption of the doctrine of preemptive warfare, namely war as an instrument of  “self defense”. The ideology of preemptive warfare also applies to the use of nuclear weapons on a pre-emptive basis. In 2002, the US administration put forth the concept of preemptive nuclear war, namely the use of nuclear weapons against enemies of America as a means of self defense.

The Trump administration is openly threatening the World with nuclear war. How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran or North Korea will  “make the World a safer place”?

Where is the Antiwar Movement?  

Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the antiwar movement is dead.  Piece-meal activism often funded by Wall Street prevails, focussing narrowly on environmental concerns, climate change, racism, civil rights. Invariably war and the extensive war crimes committed by US-NATO as part of an alleged counterterrorism agenda are not the object of organized public dissent. The motto is a non sequitur: “we are against war, but we support the war on terrorism.”

War propaganda prevails, thereby providing a human face to US-NATO atrocities and human rights violations. In turn, the governments of the countries which are the object of US aggression, are casually accused of killing their own people.

Media disinformation turns realties upside down. North Korea is not a threat to global security. Belgium with 20 B61 tactical nukes deployed under national command has a larger arsenal than the DPRK (allegedly 4 nuclear bombs).

These B61 nuclear bombs in five undeclared European nuclear weapons states (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey) are targeted at both Russia and the Middle East.

.

 

The mainstream media has failed to warn public opinion that a US led nuclear attack against North Korea or Iran could evolve towards World War III, which in the words of Albert Einstein would be “terminal”, leading to the destruction of humanity.

“Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbor the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”  (Fidel Castro Ruz, Conversations with Michel Chossudovsky, October 12-15, 2010)

I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, butWorld War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. (Albert Einstein)

The anti-war movement is dead, nuclear war is not front page news.

The justification of America’s long war is to “make the world safer”.

War is presented as a humanitarian endeavor. Global Security requires going after al Qaeda as part of an alleged counter-terrorism campaign.

The world is led to believe that  the Islamic State and Al Qaeda are threatening the World. The truth is that Al Qaeda and its  numerous affiliates  as well as the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh) are without exception creations of US intelligence. They are intelligence assets.

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction. 

From Colonialism to Post-Colonialism

Post-colonial history is a continuation of colonial history which established America’s contemporary imperial agenda, largely as a result of the displacement and defeat by the US of the former colonial powers (e.g. Spain, France, Japan, Netherlands). This US hegemonic project largely consists in transforming sovereign countries into open territories, controlled by dominant economic and financial interests. Military, intelligence as well economic instruments are used to carry out this hegemonic project.

Militarization marked by more than 700 US military bases and facilities worldwide under the unified combatant command structure indelibly supports a global economic agenda.

Moreover, this military deployment is supported by US macro-economic policy which imposes austerity on all categories of civil expenditure with a view to releasing the funds required to finance America’s military arsenal and war economy.

Military intervention and regime change initiatives including CIA sponsored military coups and “color revolutions” are broadly supportive of the neoliberal policy agenda which has been imposed on indebted developing countries Worldwide.

The Globalization of Poverty 

The “globalization of poverty” in the post-colonial era is the direct result of the imposition of deadly macroeconomic reforms under IMF-World Bank jurisdiction. The Bretton Woods institutions are instruments of Wall Street and the corporate establishment.

The time path of these reforms –which has led to a process of global economic restructuring– is of crucial significance. The early 1980s marks the onslaught of the so-called structural adjustment program (SAP) under the helm of the IMF and the World Bank. “Policy conditionalities” largely directed against indebted Third World countries are used as a means of intervention, whereby the Washington based International Financial Institutions (IFI) impose a set menu of deadly economic policy reforms including austerity, privatization, the phasing out of social programs, trade reforms, compression of real wages, etc.

It is worth noting that a parallel process of neoliberal economic reform –which largely consisted in privatizing as well gradually dismantling the welfare state– was instigated in the 1980s in the US and Britain under what was described as the Reagan-Thatcher era.

Post-Cold War Era Reforms

A second phase of economic restructuring commences at the end of the Cold War with drastic economic reform packages imposed on Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, the Balkans as well as on the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union (e.g. Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan).

Concurrently in Western Europe the Maastricht Treaty –which came into force in 1993– was imposed on the member states of the European Union. What was referred to as the The Maastricht criteria (or  convergence criteria) which eventually led to the formation of the eurozone largely consisted in imposed the neoliberal policy agenda on the EU member states. These Maastricht criteria also served to derogate the sovereignty of individual member states.

Maastricht is a structural adjustment program (SAP) in disguise. Essentially Maastricht and the subsequent instatement of the eurozone contributed to paralyzing national monetary policy, foreclosing the use of internal public debt operations as an instrument of national economic development. The requirements of budgetary austerity imposed under the “Maastricht criteria” limited EU member states ability to finance their social programs leading to the gradual demise of the post World War II welfare state. The public debt is taken over by the European Central Bank (ECB) as well as private creditors.  The longer term impacts are mounting external debts as well as debt conditionalities and the repayment of debt from the proceeds of an extensive privatization program.

It should be mentioned that this phase of restructuring also coincides with the inauguration of the World Trade Organization (1995) and theNorth American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has been conducive to a dramatic  transformation of the North American economic landscape, leading to the demise of regional and local level economies throughout North America.

In turn, the 1990s coincides with an extension and expansion of NATO, including massive “defense” expenditures which are not the object of neoliberal austerity measures. In fact quite the opposite. Neoliberalism feeds the Military Industrial Complex.

What is at stake is the “Thirdworldization” of the so-called developed countries leading to mass unemployment in several EU countries including Spain, Portugal and Greece, whose economies are now subjected to same IMF style reforms as those applied in Third World countries. What this signifies is that the Globalization of Poverty has extended its grip, leading to the impoverishment not only of the former Soviet block countries and the Balkans but also of the so-called high income countries of Western Europe.

More generally, the 1990s coinciding with NATO’s “humanitarian” war against Yugoslavia is the launchpad of NATO’s military buildup as well as  the globalization of NATO beyond it’s North Atlantic boundaries in the post Cold War era.

The Asian crisis of 1997-98 also marks an important threshold in the evolution of the neoliberal economic framework, pointing to the ability through speculative manipulations of foreign exchange and commodity market to literally destabilize the national economy of targeted countries. In this regard, institutional speculators have now the ability of artificially pushing up the price of food staples, or pushing up or down the price of crude oil.

The Global Cheap Labor Economy

The neoliberal agenda characterized by the imposition of strong “economic medicine” (austerity measures, freeze on wages, privatisation, repeal of social programs) has in the course of the last 30 years supported the extensive delocation of manufacturing to cheap labor (low wage) havens in developing countries. It has also served to impoverish both the developing and developed countries.

“Poverty is good for business.” It promotes the supply of cheap labor commodities worldwide in industry as well as in sections of the services economy.

This global process of economic restructuring (which has reached new heights) relies on compressing wages and the cost of labor worldwide while at the same time reducing the purchasing power of hundreds of millions of people. This compression of consumer demand ultimately triggers recession and rising unemployment.

The low wage economy is supported by exceedingly high levels of unemployment, which in developing countries are also the result of the destruction of the regional and local production not to mention the destabilization of the rural economy. This “reserve army on unemployed” (Marx) contributes to keeping wages down to their bare minimum.

China is the most important haven of cheap labor industrial assembly with 275 million migrant workers (according to official Chinese sources). Ironically, the West’s former colonies, as well as countries which are the victims of US military aggression and war crimes (e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia) have been transformed into cheap labor havens. The conditions prevailing in the aftermath of the Vietnam war were in large part instrumental in the imposition of the neoliberal agenda starting in the early 1990s.

Cheap labor is also exported from impoverished countries (India, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia, etc)  and used in the construction industry as well as in the services economy.

High levels of unemployment serve to maintain wages at an exceedingly low levels

Aggregate Demand

This global economic restructuring has been conducive to a dramatic increase in poverty and unemployment. While poverty is an input on the supply side favoring low levels of wages, the global cheap labor economy inevitably leads to a collapse in purchasing power, which in turn serves to increase the levels of unemployment.

Cheap labor and the compression of purchasing is the mainstay of neoliberalism. The transition from demand oriented Keynesian policies in the 1970s to the neoliberal macro-ecoomic agenda in the 1980s. The neoliberal economic policy agenda applied Worldwide sustains the global cheap labor economy. With the demise of demand oriented policies, neoliberalism emerges as the dominant economic paradigm.

Structural Adjustment in the Developed Economies

This generalized collapse in living standards which is the product of a macroeconomic agenda, is no longer limited to the so-called developing countries. Mass unemployment prevails in the United States, several EU countries including Spain, Portugal, Greece are experiencing exceedingly high levels of unemployment. Concurrently, the revenues of the middle class are being compressed, social programs are privatised, social safety nets including unemployment insurance benefits and social welfare programs are being curtailed.

Underconsumption

The generalized collapse of purchasing power is conducive to a recession in the consumer goods industry. Commodity production is not geared towards the basic necessities of life (food, housing, social services, etc) for the majority of the World’s population. There is a dichotomy between “those who work” in the cheap labor economy and “those who consume”.

The fundamental injustice of this global economic system is that “those who work” cannot afford to purchase what they produce. In other words, neoliberalism does not promote mass consumption. Quite the opposite: the development of extreme social inequalities both within and between countries ultimately leads to recession in the production of necessary goods and services (including food, social housing, public health, education).

The lack of purchasing power of “those who produce” (not to mention those who are unemployed) leads to a collapse in aggregate demand. In turn, there is surge in the demand for “high end luxury consumption” (broadly defined)  by the upper income strata of society.

Weapons and Luxury Goods. The Two Dynamic Sectors of the Global Economy

Essentially, while global poverty contributes to underconsumption by the large majority of the World’s population, the driving force of economic growth are the upper income markets (deluxe brand names, travel and leisure, luxury cars, electronics, private schools and clinics, etc).

The global cheap labor economy triggers poverty and underconsumption of necessary goods and services.

The two dynamic sectors of the global economy are

1. Production for the upper income strata of society.

2. The production and consumption of weapons, namely the military industrial complex.

Neoliberal policy  is conducive to the development of a global cheap labor economy which triggers decline in the production of necessary consumer goods (Marx’s Department IIa).

In turn, the lack of demand for necessary goods and services triggers a vacuum in the development of social infrastructure and investments (schools, hospitals, public transportation, public health, etc) in support of the standard of living of the large majority of world population.

The global cheap labor economy alongside the restructuring of the global financial apparatus creates an unprecedented concentration of income and wealth which is accompanied by the dynamic development of the luxury goods economy (broadly defined) (Marx’s Department IIb) .

Department III in the contemporary global economy is the production of weapons, which are sold Worldwide largely to governments. This sector of production in the US is dominated by a handful of large corporations including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace, Boeing, et al.

While neoliberal policies require the imposition of drastic austerity measures, the latter apply solely to the civilian sectors of government spending. State funding of advanced weapons systems is not the object of budgetary constraints.

In fact, the austerity measures imposed on health, education, public infrastructure, etc, are intended to facilitate the financing of the war economy, including the military industrial complex, the regional command structure consisting of 700 US military facilities Worldwide, the intelligence and security apparatus, not to mention the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons which is the object of a one trillion dollar allocation by the US Treasury to the US Defense Department. This money is ultimately trickles down to the so-called defense contractors, which constitute a powerful political lobby.

The reproduction of this global economic system is dependent upon the growth and development of two major sectors (departments): the Military Industrial Complex and the Production of High Income and Luxury Consumption.

High income luxury consumption for the upper social strata is combined with the dynamic development of the weapons industry and the war economy. This duality is what generates exclusion and despair.

It can only be broken and dispelled through the criminalization of war, the closure of the weapons industry and the repeal of the gamut of neoliberal policy instruments which generate poverty and social inequality.

How to Reverse The Tide of War and Globalization

The people’s movement had been hijacked. The antiwar movement is defunct. The civil society organisations which have all the appearances of being “progressive” are creatures of the system. Funded by corporate charities linked to Wall Street, they form part of a politically correct “Opposition” which acts as “a spokesperson for civil society”.

But who do they represent? Many of the “partner NGOs” and lobby groups which frequently mingle with bureaucrats and politicians, have few contacts with grass-roots social movements and people’s organisations. In the meantime, they serve to deflect the articulation of “real” social movements against the New World Order.” While the neoliberal paradigm is the focus of their attention, the broader issues of war and regime change are rarely addressed.

The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on funding from both public as well as private foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.

The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.

The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.

The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.

Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits as well as the World Social Forum.

The Development of a Broad Grassroots Network

What is required is ultimately to break the “controlled opposition” through the development of a broad based grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining both to war and the neoliberal policy agenda. It is understood that US military deployments  (including nuclear weapons) are ultimately used in support of powerful economic interests.

This network would be established at all levels in society, towns and villages, work places, parishes both nationally and internationally  Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among service men and women.

The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against media disinformation. The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets, which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain.  This endeavor would require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of  the war and the global economic crisis, as well as effectively “spreading the word” through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice. It would also require eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes:

1. Thomas Donnelly (September 2000), pg i, 51, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century’, Project for a New American Century;  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
2. Elliott Abrams et al. “Statement of Principles” (June 3, 1997), newamericancentury.org; https://web.archive.org/web/20050205041635/http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
3. Thomas Donnelly Op cit. (p. iv)
4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-record-u-s-military-budget-spiralling-growth-of-americas-war-economy/5479264

“It’s almost election time, and lest you forget, American democracy has never been in greater peril. Not from inaccurate, insecure voting machines a schoolchild can hack; nor from bought-off candidates who leave voters cold; but from Russian agents probing the fabric of our society, looking for weaknesses. It is up to us, as patriotic Americans, to defend our beloved institutions against the Red Menace.” So writes  Susan Landau, a “cybersecurity expert”  with links to Big Tech and the military-industrial complex.

Landau warns that the same Russians whose interference in the 2016 presidential election was never conclusively proven are burrowing further into American society, emboldened by the absence of a decisive response to their prior meddling. 

Perhaps realizing that Americans are running low on fear – twenty years fighting a losing War on Terror have inured us to the threat of jihad, and it was only through appeals to Cold War-era pop culture that our Russophobia was so easily resuscitated – Landau plays dirty with the one card left in her propagandist’s deck. The Russians aren’t just targeting our “civil society” organizations; they want our boy scouts. 

Such allegations are calculated for maximum emotional impact. Even the most avowedly liberal American parents feel a twinge of discomfort at the rapid pace of social change over the last decade, and the scouts – no longer boy scouts in our brave new world – have been ground zero for much of this change.

America has morphed from a society that guardedly accepts sexual variation into a neurotically permissive society terrified of offending members of genders not yet invented. Facebook offers the user over 70 gender options, an all-you-can-be buffet of identity politics. To question this paradigm is considered intolerant.

By linking the gender-neutral Scouts with the Red Menace, Landau is offering progressive parents a “get out of bigotry free” card. It’s OK to be uncomfortable with the queering of the Boy Scouts, as long as the Russians are behind it!

Almost exactly a year ago, she wrote a piece for Foreign Policy warning that the Russians were plotting an assault on our cherished civil institutions and that should they succeed in infiltrating them, they might…cause us to lose trust in our government! That threat clearly didn’t galvanize the Resistance, because this year, she’s kicking things up a notch: it’s now “extremely likely” that Russians are targeting civil society groups, which are the only thing standing between us and abject barbarism. 

Landau has no proof that Russians have captured our institutions, as gay scoutmasters or otherwise, but she won’t let that stand in the way of a good story. Lacking Russian examples, she claims Facebook turned a German town into refugee-attacking hatemongers and points to a spoofed text sent to undocumented supporters of Texas senate candidate Beto O’Rourke as something Russia “could” do. In an effort to bridge these logical chasms, she links to a Brookings Institute report that depicts Russian use of US social media platforms in terms normally used to describe thermonuclear war (“An attack on western critical infrastructure seems inevitable”). 

Like the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment” from which she derives her certainty that Russians are infiltrating civil society organizations, Landau’s article treats Russian interference in the 2018 election as a foregone conclusion despite the lack of evidence, pointing to Microsoft’s claim that Russia “hacked” two conservative think tanks and two Democratic senate campaigns as proof that Putin has “our democracy” by the throat yet again.

Screengrab from The New York Times

Coverage of Microsoft’s “discovery” reads like a press release for its new AccountGuard initiative, seemingly designed to profit off candidates’ fears of Russian meddling while offering no proof of actual Russian involvement. The company also called for greater cooperation between corporations and the government, though as the first eager collaborator with the NSA’s Orwellian PRISM program way back in 2007, Microsoft could hardly cooperate any more than it already has.

The most disturbing outgrowth of the entire Russian bot narrative is the adoption of “sowing discord” as a new social sin, a crime worthy of de-platforming citizens from social media – or worse. The phrase is relatively new to the American lexicon, but one finds it in authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan, where it is used as a catch-all charge to imprison journalists and activists whose work inconveniences the regime. 

With McCarthyite organizations like PropOrNot collaborating with the mainstream media to smear independent journalists as useful idiots and traitors, the US doesn’t need Russians to sow discord. Years of dishonest divide-and-conquer media narratives have completely alienated us from our fellow man. Nothing – not even the threat of Boris and Natasha filling our children’s heads with gender theory around the campfire – can rescue our national solidarity. 2016’s status-quo candidate, Hillary Clinton, said as much when she denounced half the electorate as a “basket of deplorables” – and conservatives took that ball and ran with it, denouncing the Left as mentally ill “snowflakes” and violent Antifa goons.

As if Big Tech’s censorship wasn’t onerous enough, Landau implores Americans to censor themselves online so as not to contribute to the Russian discord-sowing operation. It’s the same line we were fed when the bogeyman was Islamic terrorism: They hate us for our freedom! So we’re going to take away your freedom in the hope they’ll go away! Or, in her words, “It’s time for Americans to change their behavior.” We’re supposed to keep our politics to ourselves, lest it get back to Putin that American civilization has its discontents.

Landau is right about one thing. It reflects poorly on American society that all that is needed to bring the whole house of cards down is for a few well-placed “wrongthink” social media posts to go viral. But this is less the fault of Russia than of America’s homegrown oligarchs, who have exploited the people so thoroughly that even the robust psychological defense mechanisms we’re taught as children to combat cognitive dissonance can only keep reality at bay for so long. Everyone has their breaking point, and America’s is fast approaching. Blame-the-Russians propaganda is the last gasp of an empire in decline, and even propagandists like Landau don’t believe it anymore. A propagandist with no audience is just a liar.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Introduction and Update

While the mainstream media has its eyes riveted on alleged Russian interference in Canada, without a shred of evidence, recent developments pertaining to the enactment of NAFTA 2.0, visibly point to US meddling in Canada’s internal affairs. 

In fact routine US political and corporate meddling is an integral part of  Canada’s history since 1866, one year before Confederation.

The Bill to Annex Canada into the US approved by the US Congress in 1866 preceded the 1867 Alaska Purchase from Russia and the subsequent establishment of the Canadian Confederation under The British North America Act of 1867. (Full text of bill in Annex)

Who is a threat to Canada’s national sovereignty. Russia or the United States?

“The Russians are Coming” to Canada.

According to Canada’s media the Kremlin wants to create divisions within Canadian Society which contribute to undermining Canadian democracy.

According to NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre Centre for Excellence based in Latvia, the Kremlin is intent upon disrupting Canada’s 2019 federal elections.

Screenshot CBC webside February 27, 2018

A leading NATO researcher says Canada should assume Russia will attempt to interfere in the 2019 federal election because that would serve the Kremlin’s purpose of helping destabilize the military alliance.

The allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election as well as its attempts to disrupt votes in Germany, France, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, among other countries, makes Canada a natural target, Janis Sarts, the director of the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence said in an interview. (Canadian Press, CBC Website, February 27, 2018)

The following article first published by GR in 2005 (with some recent additions) reviews something which most Canadians are unaware of:

From the late 1920s until the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the US had plans to invade Canada. 

Confirmed by declassified documents, a “humanitarian” warfare agenda had been contemplated in the course of the 1930s.

In a bitter irony, the use of Chemical weapons were to be used against Canadian civilians with General Douglas McArthur (who ordered the fire bombing of Japanese cities during World War II) in charge of  designing the bombing raids against Vancouver.

This is no laughing matter, The relevant national security documents were declassified in 1974.

Michel Chossudovsky, October 4, 2018

***

A 2005 Washington Post article entitled:

Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson (30 December 2005),

focuses on a detailed US Plan to Invade Canada entitled “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red,”   It was formulated in the late 1920s, approved by the US War Department in 1930, updated in 1934 and 1935, withdrawn in 1939 and declassified in 1974. (See complete WP article below)

Following the publication of the WP article, which was casually presented as political humor, Canadian network TV and print media were quick to dismiss the matter outright.

It was in a bygone era. It no longer applies:  the US administration would never dream of actually invading Canada.

Yet upon more careful examination, an ongoing plan to annex Canada to the US, is still (unofficially of course) on the books.  The underlying procedure, however, is not straightforward as in the case of an outright  military invasion (e.g. under the 1930 “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red”). Today, it involves what the media refer to as “Deep Integration”, which constitutes a more polite term for “Annexation”.

“The Icebox” in the WP article refers euphemistically to a country we call Canada, a vast territory of strategic significance for the US, with tremendous resources extending from Coast to Coast; South from the St Lawrence Valley to the North West territories and the US Alaska border.

If U.S. war plans for the conquest of Canada provoke laughter (WaPo and Globe and Mail), that is a comment on those who are laughing, not a comment on the war plans.

US Northern Command

The “invasion” of Canada is in many regards a fait accompli, a done deal.  In 2002, when US Northern Command (NorthCom) was launched, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated unilaterally that the US Military could cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters.

More specifically, the redesign of Canada’s defense system has been discussed behind closed doors at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that “the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.

This “bi-national integration” of Canada has, since 2002, been the object of continuous negotiations between Washington and Ottawa.  Upon the completion of these negotiations, Canada is slated to become member of NorthCom in 2006.

A year ago, in November 2004, I addressed these issues in a detailed article entitled:

Is the Annexation of Canada Part of the Bush Administration’s Military Agenda

While the article was widely circulated and debated on the internet, it was never cited or quoted by Canada’s mainstream media.

A shortened version of the article was submitted for publication as an Oped piece to a major Toronto daily paper, which initially expressed interest in publishing it.

Following several email exchanges, the shortened article was accepted for publication on three separate occasions. But it never appeared in print. A few months ago, the article, received a 2006 Project Censored Award by the University of California, Sonoma, School of Journalism.

With a view to promoting debate as well as media awareness prior to the January 2006 federal elections, we reproduce the following documents:

1. The article in the Washington Post entitled: Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, 30 December 2005.

2. Is the Annexation of Canada Part of the Bush Administration’s Military Agenda, by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November  2004

3. US, Canada and Mexico rollout border plans, by Shaun Waterman, UPI, July 2005

4. “Securing the North American Security Perimeter” Dismantling the US Border, Bringing Canada and Mexico into Fortress America, June 10, 2005 CNN

5. Mexico and U.S. put “Security Perimeter” on fast-track, Mexidata, by José Carreño, May 20, 2005.

6. The Bill to Annex Canada into the US (1866).  [Text of Bill approved by the US Congress in 1866. The latter preceded the 1867 Alaska Purchase from Russia and the subsequent establishment of the Canadian Confederation under The British North America Act of 1867.  Read the text of this Bill carefully. It is still relevant. Incidentally the term “Icebox” was first used in relation to the Alaska Purchase.]

---

ANNEX

Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada

by Peter Carlson,

Washington Post, 30 December 2005 

Invading Canada won’t be like invading Iraq: When we invade Canada, nobody will be able to grumble that we didn’t have a plan.

The United States government does have a plan to invade Canada. It’s a 94-page document called “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan — Red,” with the word SECRET stamped on the cover. It’s a bold plan, a bodacious plan, a step-by-step plan to invade, seize and annex our neighbor to the north. It goes like this:

First, we send a joint Army-Navy overseas force to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting the Canadians off from their British allies.

Then we seize Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, so they freeze in the dark.

Then the U.S. Army invades on three fronts — marching from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, charging out of North Dakota to grab the railroad center at Winnipeg, and storming out of the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy seizes the Great Lakes and blockades Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.

At that point, it’s only a matter of time before we bring these Molson-swigging, maple-mongering Zamboni drivers to their knees! Or, as the official planners wrote, stating their objective in bold capital letters: “ULTIMATELY TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL.”

It sounds like a joke but it’s not. War Plan Red is real. It was drawn up and approved by the War Department in 1930, then updated in 1934 and 1935. It was declassified in 1974 and the word “SECRET” crossed out with a heavy pencil. Now it sits in a little gray box in the National Archives in College Park, available to anybody, even Canadian spies. They can photocopy it for 15 cents a page.

War Plan Red was actually designed for a war with England. In the late 1920s, American military strategists developed plans for a war with Japan (code name Orange), Germany (Black), Mexico (Green) and England (Red). The Americans imagined a conflict between the United States (Blue) and England over international trade: “The war aim of RED in a war with BLUE is conceived to be the definite elimination of BLUE as an important economic and commercial rival.”

In the event of war, the American planners figured that England would use Canada (Crimson) — then a quasi-pseudo-semi-independent British dominion — as a launching pad for “a direct invasion of BLUE territory.” That invasion might come overland, with British and Canadian troops attacking Buffalo, Detroit and Albany. Or it might come by sea, with amphibious landings on various American beaches — including Rehoboth and Ocean City, both of which were identified by the planners as “excellent” sites for a Brit beachhead.

The planners anticipated a war “of long duration” because “the RED race” is “more or less phlegmatic” but “noted for its ability to fight to a finish.” Also, the Brits could be reinforced by “colored” troops from their colonies: “Some of the colored races however come of good fighting stock, and, under white leadership, can be made into very efficient troops.”

The stakes were high: If the British and Canadians won the war, the planners predicted, “CRIMSON will demand that Alaska be awarded to her.”

Imagine that! Canada demanding a huge chunk of U.S. territory! Them’s fightin’ words! And so the American strategists planned to fight England by seizing Canada. (Also Jamaica, Barbados and Bermuda.) And they didn’t plan to give them back.

“Blue intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained,” Army planners wrote in an appendix to the war plan. “The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace.”

None of this information is new. After the plan was declassified in 1974, several historians and journalists wrote about War Plan Red. But still it remains virtually unknown on both sides of the world’s largest undefended border.

“I’ve never heard of it,” said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute in Washington, which thinks about Canada.

“I remember sort of hearing about this,” said Bernard Etzinger, spokesman for the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

“It’s the first I’ve heard of it,” said David Courtemanche, mayor of Sudbury, Ontario, whose nickel mines were targeted in the war plan.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he’d never heard of the plan. He also said he wouldn’t admit to knowing about such a plan if he did.

“We don’t talk about any of our contingency plans,” he said.

Has the Pentagon updated War Plan Red since the ’30s?

“The Defense Department never talks about its contingency plans for any countries,” Whitman said. “We don’t acknowledge which countries we have contingency plans for.”

Out in Winnipeg — the Manitoba capital, whose rail yards were slated to be seized in the plan — Brad Salyn, the city’s director of communications, said he didn’t think Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz knew anything about War Plan Red: “You know he would have no clue about what you’re talking about, eh?”

“I’m sure Winnipeggers will stand up tall in defense of our country,” Mayor Katz said later. “We have many, many weapons.”

What kind of weapons?

“We have peashooters, slingshots and snowballs,” he said, laughing.

But the Canadians’ best weapon, Katz added, is their weather. “It gets to about minus-50 Celsius with a wind chill,” he said. “It will be like Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. I’m quite convinced that you’ll meet your Waterloo on the banks of the Assiniboine River.”

As it turns out, Katz isn’t the first Canadian to speculate on how to fight the U.S.A. In fact, Canadian military strategists developed a plan to invade the United States in 1921 — nine years before their American counterparts created War Plan Red.

The Canadian plan was developed by the country’s director of military operations and intelligence, a World War I hero named James Sutherland “Buster” Brown. Apparently Buster believed that the best defense was a good offense: His “Defence Scheme No. 1” called for Canadian soldiers to invade the United States, charging toward Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle and Great Falls, Mont., at the first signs of a possible U.S. invasion.

“His plan was to start sending people south quickly because surprise would be more important than preparation,” said Floyd Rudmin, a Canadian psychology professor and author of “Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of U.S. Military Preparations Against Canada,” a 1993 book about both nations’ war plans. “At a certain point, he figured they’d be stopped and then retreat, blowing up bridges and tearing up railroad tracks to slow the Americans down.”

Brown’s idea was to buy time for the British to come to Canada’s rescue. Buster even entered the United States in civilian clothing to do some reconnaissance.

“He had a total annual budget of $1,200,” said Rudmin, “so he himself would drive to the areas where they were going to invade and take pictures and pick up free maps at gas stations.”

Rudmin got interested in these war plans in the 1980s when he was living in Kingston, Ontario, just across the St. Lawrence River from Fort Drum, the huge Army base in Upstate New York. Why would the Americans put an Army base in such a wretched, frigid wilderness? he wondered. Could it be there to . . . fight Canada?

He did some digging. He found “War Plan Red” and “Defence Scheme No. 1.” At the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., he found a 1935 update of War Plan Red, which specified which roads to use in the invasion (“The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99”).

Rudmin also learned about an American plan from 1935 to build three military airfields near the Canadian border and disguise them as civilian airports. The secret scheme was revealed after the testimony of two generals in a closed-door session of the House Military Affairs Committee was published by mistake. When the Canadian government protested the plan, President Franklin Roosevelt reassured it that he wasn’t contemplating war. The whole brouhaha made the front page of the New York Times on May 1, 1935.

That summer, however, the Army held what were the biggest war games in American history on the site of what is now Fort Drum, Rudmin said.

Is he worried that the Yanks will invade his country from Fort Drum?

“Not now,” he said. “Now the U.S. is kind of busy in Iraq. But I wouldn’t put it past them.”

He’s not paranoid, he hastened to add, and he doesn’t think the States will simply invade Canada the way Hitler invaded Russia.

But if some kind of crisis — perhaps something involving the perennially grumpy French Canadians — destabilized Canada, then . . . well, Fort Drum is just across the river.

“We most certainly are not preparing to invade Canada,” said Ben Abel, the official spokesman for Fort Drum.

The fort, he added, is home to the legendary 10th Mountain Division, which is training for its third deployment in Afghanistan. There are also 1,200 Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

“I find it very hard to believe that we’d be planning to invade Canada,” Abel said. “We have a lot of Canadian soldiers training here. I bumped into a Canadian officer in the bathroom the other day.”

Invading Canada is an old American tradition. Invading Canada successfully is not.

During the American Revolution, Benedict Arnold — then in his pre-traitor days — led an invasion of Canada from Maine. It failed.

During the War of 1812, American troops invaded Canada several times. They were driven back.

In 1839, Americans from Maine confronted Canadians in a border dispute known as the Aroostook War.

“There were never any shots fired,” said Etzinger, the Canadian Embassy spokesman, “but I think an American cow was injured — and a Canadian pig.”

In 1866, about 800 Irish Americans in the Fenian Brotherhood decided to strike a blow for Irish independence by invading Canada. They crossed the Niagara River into Ontario, where they defeated a Canadian militia. But when British troops approached, the Fenians fled back to the United States, where many were arrested.

After that, Americans stopped invading Canada and took up other hobbies, such as invading Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada and, of course, Iraq.

But the dream of invading Canada lives on in the American psyche, occasionally manifesting itself in bizarre ways. Movies, for instance.

In the 1995 movie “Canadian Bacon,” the U.S. president, played by Alan Alda, decides to jump-start the economy by picking a fight with Canada. His battle cry: “Surrender pronto or we’ll level Toronto.”

In the 1999 movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut,” Americans, angered that their kids have been corrupted by a pair of foulmouthed, flatulent Canadian comedians, go to war. Canada responds by sending its air force to bomb the Hollywood home of the Baldwin brothers — a far more popular defensive strategy than anything Buster Brown devised. Moviegoers left theaters humming the film’s theme:

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

With all their hockey hullabaloo

And that bitch Anne Murray too!

Blame Canada! Shame on Canada!

But it’s not just movies. The urge to invade Canada comes in myriad forms.

In 2002, the conservative magazine National Review published an essay called “Bomb Canada: The Case for War.” The author, Jonah Goldberg, suggested that the United States “launch a quick raid into Canada” and blow something up — “perhaps an empty hockey stadium.” That would cause Canada to stop wasting its money on universal health insurance and instead fund a military worthy of the name, so that “Canada’s neurotic anti-Americanism would be transformed into manly resolve.”

And let’s not forget the Web site InvadeCanada.US, which lists many compelling reasons for doing do: “let’s make Alaska actually connected to the U.S. again!” and “they’re just a little too proud” and “the surrender will come quickly, they’re French after all.”

The site also sells T-shirts, buttons, teddy bears and thong underwear, all of them decorated with the classic picture of Uncle Sam atop the slogan “I WANT YOU to Invade Canada.”

What’s going on here? Why do Americans love to joke about invading Canada?

Because Americans see Canadians as goody-goodies, said Biette, the Canada Institute director. Canadians didn’t rebel against the British, remaining loyal colonial subjects. They didn’t have a Wild West, settling their land without the kind of theatrical gunfights that make for good movies. And they like to hector us about our misbehavior.

“We’re ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and they’re ‘peace, order and good government,’ ” Biette said. “So if you’re a wild American, you look at them and say, ‘They’re just a bunch of Boy Scouts.’ ”

Canadians are well aware of our invasion talk. Not surprisingly, they take it a bit more seriously than we do.

When “The West Wing” had a subplot last winter about a U.S.-Canada border incident, Canadian newspapers took note.

When Jon Stewart joked about invading Canada on “The Daily Show” last March, Canadian newspapers covered the story.

When the Toronto Star interviewed comedian Jimmy Kimmel last year, the reporter asked him: “Is it only a matter of time before America invades Canada?”

“I’m not sure,” Kimmel replied.

In 2003, the Canadian army set up an Internet chat room where soldiers and civilians could discuss defense issues. “One of the hottest topics on the site discusses whether the U.S. will invade Canada to seize its natural resources,” the Ottawa Citizen reported. “If the attack did come, Canada could rely on a scorched-earth policy similar to what Russia did when invaded by Nazi Germany, one participant recommends. ‘With such emmense [sic] land, and with our cold climates, we may be able to hold them off, even though we have the much weaker military,’ the individual concludes.”

Etzinger, the Canadian Embassy spokesman, isn’t worried about an American invasion because Canada has a secret weapon — actually thousands of secret weapons.

“We’ve got thousands of Canadians in the U.S. right now, in place secretly,” he said. “They could be on your street. We’ve sent people like Celine Dion and Mike Myers to secretly infiltrate American society.”

Pretty funny, Mr. Etzinger. But the strategists who wrote War Plan Red were prepared for that problem. They noted that “it would be necessary to deal internally” with the “large number” of Brits and Canadians living in the United States — and also with “a small number of professional pacifists and communists.”

The planners did not specify exactly what would be done with those undesirables. But it would be kinda fun to see Celine Dion and Mike Myers wearing orange jumpsuits down in Guantanamo.

Copyright, Washington Post 2005

---

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush’s Military Agenda?

By Michel Chossudovsky

June 20, 2005  Global Research, originally published in November 2004 – 2004-11-23

SUMMARY  [For the complete article published by Global Research click here ]

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington’s geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “Binational integration” of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada’s defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”

(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that “the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'” (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called “consultative” Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to “prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States”.

The BPG’s mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making “recommendations” to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian “military planners”, who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called ” panel responsible for detailed joint military planning”.

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established “military contingency plans” which would be activated “on both sides of the Canada-US border” in the case of a terror attack or “threat”. Under the BPG’s Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called “threat scenarios” would involve:

“coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada.”

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the “Canada-US Smart Border Declaration.” Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.

What these developments suggest is that the process of “binational integration” is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada’s jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?

Canada and NORTHCOM

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG’s two years mandate.

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being “in the national interest”. It “will create jobs for Canadians” and “will make Canada more secure”.

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada’s participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada’s acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security. US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement. Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa. But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to “the center of the empire”. Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have embraced the US war agenda.

By endorsing a Canada-US “integration” in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing”, it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington’s pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the “War on Terrorism”  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html  May 2004)

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its “ethnic profiling” directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.

For text of complete Article by Michel Chossudovsky click here

---

US, Canada and Mexico rollout border plans

by Shaun Waterman, UPI, June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON — The United States and its North American neighbors say they will set up a trusted traveler scheme for the whole continent by 2008, and will this year develop a plan to respond together to major terror attacks and other incidents.

Trusted traveler programs enable people who provide biometric personal data — like fingerprints or iris scans — pay a fee and submit to background checks to use special travel lanes at border crossings.

The idea is to speed processing for those travelers not thought security risks, and whose identity can be verified biometrically.

A Department of Homeland Security statement Monday said that air and sea ports would also be included.

The program, first unveiled last week at a House panel by homeland security official Elaine Dezenski, would incorporate both NEXUS and SENTRI — the two trusted traveler programs currently run at the U.S. border.

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke told United Press International that details of the scheme — including whether it would employ biometrics — have yet to be finalized, but added that biometrics was “the direction everything’s moving in, identity-wise.”

Answering reporters’ questions about the scheme in Ottawa Monday, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said “the way forward ultimately, not just with respect to North America, but with respect to the world, is biometrics.”

The program is part of a hugely ambitious initiative launched by President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin on March 23 this year, following their summit at the president’s Crawford, Texas ranch.

Ultimately, the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America, as it is called, aims to standardize border admissions procedures — watchlist checks, visa processing and document standards — to the point where “all travelers arriving in North America will experience a comparable level of screening,” according to a homeland security fact sheet.

The program was announced Monday following a meeting in Ottawa, Canada, between Chertoff and his opposite numbers — Mexican Interior Secretary Carlos Abascal and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Anne McLellan.

The three were joined by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Canadian Minister of Industry David Emerson and Mexican Secretary of the Economy Fernando Canales.

The meeting, the first in a series of planned follow-ons to the March summit, also agreed that the three nations would work towards “compatible biometric border and immigration systems,” announced the elimination of a series of regulatory barriers and other impediments to cross-border commerce, and committed to a comprehensive plan for responding together to major terror attacks and other incidents.

Within 12 months, the fact sheet says, the three nations will have established “protocols for incident management that impact border operations (and for) maritime incidents, cross-border public health emergencies and cross-border law enforcement response.”

Co-operation on incident response will also include “interoperable communications systems” and joint preparedness exercises, including one ahead of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The United States and Mexico also agreed to form joint intelligence-sharing task forces along their border “to target criminal gang and trafficking organizations.”

The three countries also committed to work towards “compatible criteria for the posting of lookouts of suspected terrorists and criminals” and “real time information sharing on high risk individuals and cargos.”

This last element of the plans may prove controversial in Canada, where public opinion seems concerned that a closer security relationship with the United States might jeopardize Canada’s traditionally welcoming attitude toward asylum seekers or require an unnerving degree of information sharing.

The case of Maher Arar has dramatized Canadian concerns about counter-terror cooperation. Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who was shipped to Syria — where he was tortured — by U.S. authorities after Canadian intelligence identified him to them as a suspected associate of a suspected terrorist.

“The real time sharing of information with U.S. security agencies about a foreigner visiting Vancouver with no intention of entering the United States seems certain to cause a stir,” opined the Toronto Globe and Mail earlier this year, adding that just such transparency would be necessary to the most ambitious visions of a common U.S.-Canadian security frontier.

In Mexico, attention is fixed on different questions about the partnership — which Mexican officials refer to as the Security, Prosperity and Quality of Life Partnership.

“Why has the initiative not included funding provisions for reducing the economic gap between Mexico and the United States and Canada?” asked a Mexican reporter of Chertoff and Gutierrez.

Copyright UPI, 2005

---

“Securing the North American Security Perimeter” Dismantling the US Border, Bringing Canada and Mexico into Fortress America

CNN, June 10, 2005

Excerpt

DOBBS: Border security is arguably the critical issue in this country’s fight against radical Islamist terrorism. But our borders remain porous. So porous that three million illegal aliens entered this country last year, nearly all of them from Mexico.

Now, incredibly, a panel sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations wants the United States to focus not on the defense of our own borders, but rather create what effectively would be a common border that includes Mexico and Canada.

Christine Romans has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) RELATED: Internationalizing US Roads

Task force urges creation of ‘Fortress America’

New PNAC/neocon front group pushing tri-national ID on 9/11 corpse

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On Capitol Hill, testimony calling for Americans to start thinking like citizens of North America and treat the U.S., Mexico and Canada like one big country.

ROBERT PASTOR, IND. TASK FORCE ON NORTH AMERICA: The best way to secure the United States today is not at our two borders with Mexico and Canada, but at the borders of North America as a whole.

ROMANS: That’s the view in a report called “Building a North American Community.” It envisions a common border around the U.S., Mexico and Canada in just five years, a border pass for residents of the three countries, and a freer flow of goods and people.

Task force member Robert Pastor.

PASTOR: What we hope to accomplish by 2010 is a common external tariff which will mean that goods can move easily across the border. We want a common security perimeter around all of North America, so as to ease the travel of people within North America.

ROMANS: Buried in 49 pages of recommendations from the task force, the brief mention, “We must maintain respect for each other’s sovereignty.” But security experts say folding Mexico and Canada into the U.S. is a grave breach of that sovereignty.

FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: That’s what would happen if anybody serious were to embrace this strategy for homogenizing the United States and its sovereignty with the very different systems existing today in Canada and Mexico. RESOURCES: AZTLAN – the plan for ‘reconquista’.

ROMANS: Especially considering Mexico’s problems with drug trafficking, human smuggling and poverty. Critics say the country is just too far behind the U.S. and Canada to be included in a so-called common community. But the task force wants military and law enforcement cooperation between all three countries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indeed, an exchange of personnel that bring Canadians and Mexicans into the Department of Homeland Security.

ROMANS: And it wants temporary migrant worker programs expanded with full mobility of labor between the three countries in the next five years.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: The idea here is to make North America more like the European Union. Yet, just this week, voters in two major countries in the European Union voted against upgrading — updating the European constitution. So clearly, this is not the best week to be trying to sell that idea.

DOBBS: Americans must think that our political and academic elites have gone utterly mad at a time when three-and-a-half years, approaching four years after September 11, we still don’t have border security. And this group of elites is talking about not defending our borders, finally, but rather creating new ones. It’s astonishing.

ROMANS: The theory here is that we are stronger together, three countries in one, rather than alone.

DOBBS: Well, it’s a — it’s a mind-boggling concept. Christine Romans, thank you, as always.

There is no greater example than our next story as to why the United States must maintain its border security with Mexico, and importantly, secure that border absolutely. The police chief of the violent Mexican border town, Nuevo Laredo, was today executed. It was his first day on the job.

Alejandro Dominguez, seen here at his swearing-in ceremony, was ambushed by a number of gunmen several hours just after that ceremony as he left his office. The assassins fired more than three dozen rounds that struck Dominguez.

He was the only person who volunteered to become Nuevo Laredo’s police chief. The position has been vacant for weeks after the previous chief of police resigned. The town is at the center of what is a violent war between Mexican drug lords. The State Department has issued two travel warnings for Americans about that area just this year. And amazingly, the Mexican government calls those State Department warnings unnecessary.

Still ahead, the military recruiting crisis is escalating. New questions tonight about the viability of the all-volunteer military. General David Grange is our guest.

And “Living Dangerously,” our special report. Rising population growth in the West, dangerous water shortages, the worst drought arguably ever. We’ll have that report for you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RECOGNIZING the contributions of the OAS and other regional and sub-regional mechanisms to the promotion and consolidation of democracy in the Americas;…

Copyright CNN 2005

Mexico and U.S. put “Security Perimeter” on fast-track

by José Carreño, Mexidata, May 20, 2005

Washington, D.C.- Task force groups from the U.S. and Mexico are working together, on a fast-track basis, on in-depth reforms to national security relations between the two countries.

The delegations are working on the creation of a “North American Security Perimeter,” that among other factors includes the identification of targets vulnerable to terrorism along the common border.

Gerónimo Gutiérrez, Mexico’s Undersecretary of Foreign Relations, said that the negotiations are going well, with an initial session for proposals scheduled for June.

The border area security plan is being discussed at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Mexican National Security and Investigation/Research Center (Cisen) levels.

National security officials and analysts noted that authorities in both countries have suggested the possibility of terrorist attacks on tourist destinations frequented by U.S. citizens

Copyright Mexidata 2005

---

The Bill to Annex Canada into the US (1866)

A Bill for the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and for the organization of the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia. (Annexation Bill)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed, whenever notice shall be deposited in the Department of State that the governments of Great Britain and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Canada, British Columbia, and Vancouver’s Island have accepted the proposition hereinafter made by the United States, to publish by proclamation that, from the date thereof, the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by the act defined, are constituted and admitted as States and Territories of the United States of America. SEC. 2 And be it further enacted, That the following articles are hereby proposed, and from the date of the proclamation of the President of the United States shall take effect, as irrevocable conditions of the admission of the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the future States of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, to wit:

ARTICLE I.

All public lands not sold or granted; canals, public harbors, light-houses, and piers; river and lake improvements; railway stocks, mortgages, and other debts due by railway companies to the provinces; custom-houses and post offices, shall vest in the United States; but all other public works and property shall belong to the State governments respectively, hereby constituted, together with all sums due from purchasers or lessees of lands, mines, or minerals at the time of the union.

ARTICLE II.

In consideration of the public lands, works, and property vested as aforesaid in the United States, the United States will assume and discharge the funded debt and contingent liabilities of the late provinces, at rates of interest not exceeding five per centum, to the amount of eighty-five million seven hundred thousand dollars, apportioned as follows: To Canada West, thirty-six million five hundred thousand dollars; to Canada East, twenty-nine million dollars; to Nova Scotia, eight million dollars; to New Brunswick, seven million dollars; to Newfoundland, three million two hundred thousand dollars; and to Prince Edward Island, two million dollars; and in further consideration of the transfer by said provinces to the United States of the power to levy import and export duties, the United States will make an annual grant of one million six hundred and forty-six thousand dollars in aid of local expenditures, to be apportioned as follows: To Canada West, seven hundred thousand dollars; to Canada East, five hundred and fifty thousand dollars; to Nova Scotia, one hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars; to New Brunswick, one hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars; to Newfoundland, sixty-five thousand dollars; to Prince Edward Island, forty thousand dollars.

ARTICLE III.

For all purposes of State organization and representation in the Congress of the United States, Newfoundland shall be part of Canada East, and Prince Edward Island shall be part of Nova Scotia, except that each shall always be a separate representative district, and entitled to elect at least one member of the House of Representatives, and except, also, that the municipal authorities of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island shall receive the indemnities agreed to be paid by the United States in Article II.

ARTICLE IV.

Territorial divisions are established as follows: (1) New Brunswick, with its present limits; (2) Nova Scotia, with the addition of Prince Edward Island; (3) Canada East, with the addition of Newfoundland and all territory east of longitude eighty degrees and south of Hudson’s strait; (4) Canada West, with the addition of territory south of Hudson’s bay and between longitude eighty degrees longitude ninety degrees; (5) Selkirk Territory, bounded east by longitude ninety degrees, south by the late boundary of the United States, west by longitude one hundred and five degrees, and north by the Arctic circle; (6) Saskatchewan Territory, bounded east by longitude one hundred and five degrees, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, west by the Rocky mountains, and north by latitude seventy degrees; (7) Columbia Territory, including Vancouver’s Island, and Queen Charlotte’s island, and bounded east and north by the Rocky mountains, south by latitude forty-nine degrees, and west by the Pacific ocean and Russian America. But Congress reserves the right of changing the limits and subdividing the areas of the western territories at discretion.

ARTICLE V.

Until the next decennial revision, representation in the House of Representatives shall be as follows: Canada West, twelve members; Canada East, including Newfoundland, eleven members; New Brunswick, two members; Nova Scotia, including Prince Edward Island, four members.

ARTICLE VI.

The Congress of the United States shall enact, in favor of the proposed Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, all the provisions of the act organizing the Territory of Montana, so far as they can be made applicable.

ARTICLE VII.

The United States, by the construction of new canals, or the enlargement of existing canals, and by the improvement of shoals, will so aid the navigation of the Saint Lawrence river and the great lakes that vessels of fifteen hundred tons burden shall pass from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to Lakes Superior and Michigan: Provided, That the expenditure under this article shall not exceed fifty millions of dollars.

ARTICLE VIII.

The United States will appropriate and pay to “The European and North American Railway Company of Maine” the sum of two millions of dollars upon the construction of a continuous line of railroad from Bangor, in Maine, to Saint John’s, in New Brunswick: Provided, That said “The European and North American Railway Company of Maine” shall release the government of the United States from all claims held by it as assignee of the States of Maine and Massachusetts.

ARTICLE IX.

To aid the construction of a railway from Truro, in Nova Scotia, to Riviere du Loup, in Canada East, and a railway from the city of Ottawa, by way of Sault Ste. Marie, Bayfield, and Superior, in Wisconsin, Pembina, and Fort Garry, on the Red River of the North, and the valley of the North Saskatchewan river to some point on the Pacific ocean north of latitude forty-nine degrees, the United States will grant lands along the lines of said roads to the amount of twenty sections, or twelve thousand eight hundred acres, per mile, to be selected and sold in the manner prescribed in the act to aid the construction of the Northern Pacific railroad, approved July two, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and acts amendatory thereof; and in addition to said grants of lands, the United States will further guarantee dividends of five per centum upon the stock of the company or companies which may be authorized by Congress to undertake the construction of said railways: Provided, That such guarantee of stock shall not exceed the sum of thirty thousand dollars per mile, and Congress shall regulate the securities for advances on account thereof.

ARTICLE X.

The public lands in the late provinces, as far as practicable, shall be surveyed according to the rectangular system of the General Land office of the United States; and in the Territories west of longitude ninety degrees, or the western boundary of Canada West, sections sixteen and thirty-six shall be granted for the encouragement of schools, and after the organization of the Territories into States, five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of public lands shall be paid into their treasuries as a fund for the improvement of roads and rivers.

ARTICLE XI.

The United States will pay ten millions of dollars to the Hudson Bay Company in full discharge of all claims to territory or jurisdiction in North America, whether founded on the charter of the company or any treaty, law, or usage.

ARTICLE XII.

It shall be devolved upon the legislatures of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Canada East, and Canada West, to conform the tenure of office and the local institutions of said States to the Constitution and laws of the United States, subject to revision by Congress.

SEC 3. And be it further enacted, That if Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, or either of those provinces, shall decline union with the United States, and the remaining provinces, with the consent of Great Britain, shall accept the proposition of the United States, the foregoing stipulations in favor of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, or either of them, will be omitted; but in all other respects the United States will give full effect to the plan of union. If Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall decline the proposition, but Canada, British Columbia, and Vancouver island shall, with the consent of Great Britain, accept the same, the construction of a railway from Truro to Riviere du Loup, with all stipulations relating to the maritime provinces, will form no part of the proposed plan of union, but the same will be consummated in all other respects. If Canada shall decline the proposition, then the stipulations in regard to the Saint Lawrence canals and a railway from Ottawa to Sault Ste. Marie, with the Canadian clause of debt and revenue indemnity, will be relinquished. If the plan of union shall only be accepted in regard to the northwestern territory and the Pacific provinces, the United States will aid the construction, on the terms named, of a railway from the western extremity of Lake Superior, in the State of Minnesota, by way of Pembina, Fort Garry, and the valley of the Saskatchewan, to the Pacific coast, north of latitude forty-nine degrees, besides securing all the rights and privileges of an American territory to the proposed Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia.

UPDATE

On September 28, 2018,  a 7.5 earthquake in Sulawesi, triggered a powerful and destructive tsunami, which is categorized as the most serious catastrophic event of its nature since Indian Ocean 9.0 tsunami of December 26, 2004.

According to reports, there was a failure in the warning system. A BBC October 1, 2018 report recounts the events as follows:

“A 7.5 magnitude earthquake occurred just off the island of Sulawesi at 18:03 local time (10:03 GMT) on Friday, triggering dozens of aftershocks.

Indonesia’s meteorological and geophysics agency BMKG issued a tsunami warning just after the initial quake, warning of potential waves of 0.5 to three metres.

But it lifted the warning just over 30 minutes later.

Palu – a city in Sulawesi located in a narrow bay – was hit by waves as high as six metres. The surging water brought buildings down and caused widespread destruction. Hundreds of people had gathered for a beachfront festival and it was was a scene of horror as waves powered over the beach – sweeping up everything in their path.

Indonesia’s National Disaster and Mitigation Agency has said that most of the victims in Palu were killed as a result of the tsunami.

Many critics have accused BMKG of lifting the warning too early, though the agency says the waves hit while the warning was still in force.

BMKG chairwoman Dwikorita Karnawati told the Jakarta Post that the decision to end the warning was made after the agency received information about the tsunami, including a field observation made by a BMKG employee in Palu.

She added that the tsunami alert ended at 18:37, minutes after the third and last wave hit land. She also said that there were no more tsunami waves after the alert ended.”

Why did the information not get out.

There were failures in the warning system (of a different nature) both on September 28, 2018 as well as on December 26, 2004

The following article first published in February 2005 focusses on the failures of the warning system in relation to the 9.1 earthquake of December 26, 2004 which triggered the Indian Ocean tsunami.

The tsunami warning system was also examined by the author in two texts published in the immediate wake of the December 26, 2004 tsunami

Foreknowledge of a Natural Disaster , (29 Dec  2004) and

Discrepancies in the Tsunami Warning System (14 Jan 2005).

The text below examines the broader seismic network as well as the system of satellite imagery, which provides data in near real time.

The tsunami became active immediately following the earthquake. No warnings were sent out following the seismic readings despite the fact that the tsunami had already hit the Indonesian coast.

This is the key issue.

The Tsunami was active, and this was known, corroborated not only by seismic information but also by satellite images and other data, roughly 30 minutes prior to hitting Thailand.

Why was this information withheld regarding one of the most serious seismic events in recorded history? 

Michel Chossudovsky, October 3, 2018

****

SUMMARY

(Scroll down for text of complete article)

One of the most destructive and powerful earthquakes in recorded history, more than a quarter of a million recorded deaths, local economies destroyed, the lives of entire communities shattered, and no serious investigation into the flaws of the global seismic warning system is contemplated.

According to Columbia University’s Earth Institute the M-9.0 Sumatra – Andaman Island earthquake on December 26th released energy, equivalent roughly to 700 million Hiroshima bombs.

Seismic information regarding what scientists identify as a  “rare great earthquake”, was available in near real time (i.e. almost immediately) to seismic centers around the World.

Other types of data, including satellite imagery were also available in near real time.

The advanced global seismic information and communications systems were fully operational.

Why then, did the information not get out on the morning of December 26th?

Ten of thousands of lives could have been saved.

The issue has been skirted by the Western media, sidestepped by the governments and the UN, not to mention the international scientific community.

What Happened on the Morning of December 26th?

The tsunami was triggered within minutes of the earthquake, prior to the release of the first tsunami advisory bulletin by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Hawaii, so it was no longer a question of emitting “a warning” of an imminent danger. The catastrophe had already happened.

In other words, by the time the first tsunami bulletin had been issued at 01.14 GMT, the deadly seismic wave was already sweeping Banda, the capital of Aceh province in Northern Sumatra, causing thousands of deaths.

This ex post facto bulletin emitted by the PTWC, did not even warn of the potential danger of a tsunami. Moreover, it casually dismissed an established and scientifically accepted relationship:

“If it were a 9 earthquake … with the thrusting in an ocean basin margin, the likelihood is almost 1:1 that it would generate a tsunami” (Dr. Charles Groat, Director, US Geological Survey in testimony to the Science Committee of the US House of Representatives, 26 Jan 2005).

Tip of the Iceberg

The PTWC bulletins are but the tip of the iceberg. The information on the quake was known and available in real time, to an entire network of seismic organizations.

It was also on hand and accessible to a number of government agencies both in the US and internationally, almost immediately. Numerous officials, scientists, members of the military and intelligence services, had advanced knowledge of an impending disaster.

In other words, we are not dealing with the failures of a single warning Center in Ewo, Hawaii, but with an entire Worldwide network of seismic information, satellite imagery and other sophisticated data, which was available almost immediately.

Who informs Whom?

The question is not why the PTWC did not emit a tsunami warning, but why did an entire global network of scientists and officials not emit a warning, in relation to one of the largest quakes in recorded history.

While the PTWC had indeed formally notified Washington and the Military at the Diego Garcia island base, the US government and military already knew, because the seismic data had been processed within minutes by an agency under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Interior, namely the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) based in Golden, Colorado.

The data regarding the magnitude of the earthquake originated from four seismic stations located in the Indian Ocean, operated by the International Deployment of Accelerometers (IDA) Project .

“Received signals three minutes, thirty seconds after the quake began” 

In testimony to the US Congress (Jan 26, 2005), Scripps (SIO) Deputy-Director John Orcutt which overseas the Indian Ocean IDA seismic stations confirmed that on December 26, the data pertaining to the Sumatra-Andaman quake had been “immediately and automatically forwarded by computer to the USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, Colorado and the NOAA tsunami warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska” 

The US Military Base at Diego Garcia

The first news reports underscored the fact that the US military base at Diego Garcia had been given advanced warning, but that the information reached military officials at the US island naval base “after” the tsunami had hit India and Sri Lanka:

 “An NOAA log shows that the US Pacific Command, including Diego Garcia, was given a specific warning about the tsunami some two and three quarter hours after the earthquake” (The Guardian, 7 Jan 2005)

These earlier reports must be qualified. The fact of the matter, is that the data concerning the earthquake originated from monitoring stations situated in the Indian Ocean, including the The IDA/IRIS seismic station DGAR (Diego Garcia) seismic station located directly on the site of the US island military base.

Moreover, in addition to the IDA/IRIS stations, the International Monitoring System (IMS) of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) based in Vienna, operates several stations in the Indian Ocean region, three of which are located in the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory). Two of these stations are situated directly on the site of the US military base.

There are in all four monitoring stations in the Chagos archipelago, which use the communications system of the US military base.

In other words, the US military base at Diego Garcia , with its advanced monitoring facilities, research labs, etc. was not the “recipient” but rather “the source” of the relevant data regarding the earthquake.

Satellite Imagery transmitted in Real Time

In addition to real time seismic data (as well as hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide data transmitted out of Diego Garcia), satellite images of the disaster on the North Sumatra coastline were also available in near real time to a number of agencies and international organizations.

The US has an advanced “spy satellite” system, with very precise capabilities of monitoring the terrain, including changes in the natural environment, not to mention moving objects. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which was responsible for launching the first spy satellites of the Cold War era operates a sophisticated system of reconnaissance satellites, which transmit imagery and other data in real time.

Another key US body, involved in satellite imagery is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, (NGA) , formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. The latter was in fact the architect of the global positioning system (GPS), which was conducive to creating a system of global geospatial intelligence (GEOINT).

NGA is part of the US defense system, it serves the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. It has very precise capabilities of monitoring the geographic and physical terrain by satellite, all over the world, using the techniques of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT).

In other words, state of the art satellite imagery (available to military, intelligence, civilian as well as private commercial entities)  provides “a real time set of eyes”. With regard, to the M-9.0 tsunami of December 26, satellite images were available almost immediately. The US military confirms in this regard, that it has access from its satellite systems  “to vital intelligence in real time”. These real time images were used extensively in the Iraq and Afghan war theaters. (Hearings of Sen Armed Services Committee, 25 Feb 2004).

The Role of the European Space Agency

Real time seismic and other data (including satellite imagery) were also available to a number of countries including Russia, China, Japan  and the European Union.

In this regard, The European Space Agency (ESA ), which has links to NOAA, has “multi-sensor access” in real time to data from satellites including very precise imagery which allows:

,em>”for complete large-scale phenomena to be observed to an accuracy and entirety it would take an army of ground level observers to match”

In addition to imagery, the satellite transmits other relevant data which measures very accurately “ground motion” and “sea height”:

While “before” and “after” images of the disaster have been made public, the images which show the progress and movement of the tsunami, in the period immediately following the earth quake have not been released.

Concluding Remarks: The Need for an Investigation into the Warning System

More than a quarter of million people have died in one of the World’s most devastating natural disasters.

The overriding issues pertaining to the warning / information systems, cannot be drowned or brushed aside. They must be the object of a full-fledged inquiry, preferably by an independent body.

This report has outlined a number of broad issues pertaining to the global information network. The latter requires detailed examination in the context of full-fledged inquiry.

What agencies in the US, the European Union, in the Indian Ocean countries and internationally were informed? The failures are by no means limited to the US seismic network.

When were they informed? What type of data did they have? Some of that data has not been released.

Why did the information not reach the people on time in the countries affected by the tsunami?

What factors, administrative, scientific or otherwise, contributed to preventing the information from being transmitted?

We are not dealing strictly with seismic data. Satellite images of the devastation in Northern Sumatra were also available. Other types of data were also transmitted in near real time by satellite.

The approximate speed of the seismic wave was known and confirmed. According to the news reports, the tsunami was moving at a speed of roughly 20 km a minute (on average) in relation to Sri Lanka.

The seismic information was known to the NEIC and other seismic centers within less than four minutes after the quake.

The tsunami hit the Indonesian coast within 5 minutes, in other words 10 minutes before the release of the first TPWC bulletin. Banda Aceh was hit by the tsunami 11 minutes after the earthquake, approximately 3 minutes before the release of the TPWC bulletin.

In other words, it was possible to predict in a very precise way, at what time the seismic wave would hit the coastlines of Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, The Maldives and Somalia. Had this information been transmitted in a consistent fashion, there would have been ample time to evacuate people from the coastal areas of Sri Lanka, India, not to mention the East coast of Africa.

There are no Ocean sensors in the Indian Ocean. But this was not the cause of the failures and omissions in the warning system.

The tsunami became active immediately following the earthquake. No warnings were sent out following the seismic readings despite the fact that the tsunami had already hit the Indonesian coast.

This is the key issue.

The Tsunami was active, and this was known, corroborated not only by seismic information but also by satellite images and other data, roughly 30 minutes prior to hitting Thailand.

Michel Chossudovsky, December 26, 2015

---

TEXT OF COMPLETE ARTICLE

Indian Ocean Tsunami. Why did the Information Not Get Out?

by Michel Chossudovsky

February 7, 2005

One of the most destructive and powerful earthquakes in recorded history, more than a quarter of a million recorded deaths, local economies destroyed, the lives of entire communities shattered, and no serious investigation into the flaws of the global seismic warning system is contemplated.

According to Columbia University’s Earth Institute the M-9.0 Sumatra – Andaman Island earthquake on December 26th released energy, equivalent roughly to 700 million Hiroshima bombs.

Seismic information regarding what scientists identify as a  “rare great earthquake”, was available in near real time (i.e. almost immediately) to seismic centers around the World.

Other types of data, including satellite imagery were also available in near real time.

The advanced global seismic information and communications systems were fully operational.

Why then, did the information not get out on the morning of December 26th?

Ten of thousands of lives could have been saved.

The issue has been skirted by the Western media, sidestepped by the governments and the UN, not to mention the international scientific community.

The blame was casually placed on the Indian Ocean countries, described as having “inadequate communications systems”,  not to mention the local people who “have to be trained to know what to do…If the people don’t respond, don’t understand what the communication is all about, it is for naught.” (Washington Times, 30Dec 2004)

What Happened on the Morning of December 26th?

The tsunami was triggered within minutes of the earthquake, prior to the release of the first tsunami advisory bulletin by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Hawaii, so it was no longer a question of emitting “a warning” of an imminent danger. The catastrophe had already happened.

In other words, by the time the first tsunami bulletin had been issued at 01.14 GMT, the deadly seismic wave was already sweeping Banda, the capital of Aceh province in Northern Sumatra, causing thousands of deaths.

Moreover, this ex post facto bulletin emitted by the PTWC, not only failed to acknowledge an ongoing disaster, it did not even warn of the potential danger of a tsunami, when the deadly seismic wave had already started, devastating densely populated areas. (PTWC bulletins apply to the Pacific as well as regions adjacent to the Pacific. For details, see:Discrepancies in the Tsunami Warning System )

Inconsistencies in the Tsunami Bulletins

Three days earlier, on the 23d of December, a M-7.9 earthquake was recorded with an epicenter off the South Pacific MacQuarie islands The PTWC issued the following routine tsunami advisory:

“THIS EARTHQUAKE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A WIDELY DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI IN THE SEA NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE. AUTHORITIES IN THAT REGION SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS POSSIBILITY.”

Why then in the case of a M-9.0 earthquake, which is more than ten times greater in magnitude than a M-7.9 earthquake, did the PTWC authorities fail to even issue a tsunami warning?

An event of this type and magnitude is known as a “megathrust,” which in its specific Indian Ocean location is said to occur  “approximately every few hundred years.” (See Columbia University Earth Institute ).

Scientists in fact suggested that the quake had unleashed enough energy that “it could have rocked the earth off its axis.” (See: Huge quake resonates, Carolyn Y. Johnson, Boston Globe)

In other words, the least one would have expected in the case of a “megathrust” was a similar routine statement to that issued in relation to the McQuarie islands earthquake, three days earlier, on December 23. (see:Discrepancies in the Tsunami Warning System )

The first bulletin emitted on the 26th not only failed to conform to established criteria used in previous and subsequent seismic occurrences, it casually dismissed an established and scientifically accepted relationship. According to

“If it were a 9 earthquake … with the thrusting in an ocean basin margin, the likelihood is almost 1:1 that it would generate a tsunami” (Dr. Charles Groat, Director, US Geological Survey in testimony to the Science Committee of the US House of Representatives, 26 Jan 2005).

The Earthquake took place at 00.58.50 GMT on the 26th of December. Roughly five minutes later it had hit the coast of Northern Sumatra, 11 minutes after the earthquake it devastated Banda, capital of Aceh. Fifteen minutes after the earthquake, at 01.14 GMT the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii confirmed in its bulletin:

“THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING OR WATCH IN EFFECT”

Moreover, both official and news reports out of Aceh province, following the disaster, were either delayed or were not transmitted on time.

In other words, despite the dramatic nature of the quake, the seismic information, which was available in real time, failed to reach the countries affected by the seismic wave.

Why were the countries not informed of an impending disaster?

In the words of Maine Senator Olympia Snowe:

“… what efforts, if any, were made to contact those other nations in the region that were also in harm’s way? If NOAA did not have the appropriate contacts, as has been reported, why was this the case? Was an attempt made to obtain that contact information – and if not, why not? These are questions that must be answered.”

The Western media not only failed to address the failures in the warning system, they admonished those who raised the issue.

In fact, any serious analysis of the warning system was dismissed outright.

A few press reports, nonetheless, confirmed that, with the exception of Indonesia and Australia, the Indian Ocean countries had not been informed. These same reports, largely based on statements of the Pacific Tsunami Warning system (PTWC) in Hawaii, also acknowledged that the US State Department and the Military, including the US Navy base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Chagos Archipelago had been duly notified.

In retrospect, however, these earlier press reports (including our own analysis ) need to be qualified. Published in the immediate wake of the disaster, they quote official statements to the effect that the US government and military had been informed by the PTWC, when in fact the PTWC was on the “receiving end” of the flow of seismic data. (See Foreknowledge of a Natural Disaster , Richard Norton Taylor, US island base given warning: Bulletins sent to Diego Garcia ‘could have saved lives’, The Guardian, Jan 2005).

The Information was Known to an Entire Network of Organizations

Upon closer examination, the PTWC bulletins are but the tip of the iceberg: The information on the quake was known and available in real time, to an entire network of seismic organizations. It was also on hand and accessible to a number of government agencies both in the US and internationally, almost immediately. Numerous officials, scientists, members of the military and intelligence services, had advanced knowledge of an impending disaster.

In other words, we are not dealing with the failures of a single warning Center in Ewo, Hawaii, but with an entire Worldwide network of seismic information, satellite imagery and other sophisticated data, which was available almost immediately.

Who informs Whom?

The question is not why the PTWC did not emit a tsunami warning but why did an entire global network of scientists and officials not emit a warning, in relation to one of the largest quakes in recorded history.

While the PTWC had indeed formally notified Washington and the Military at the Diego Garcia island base, the US government and military already knew, because the seismic data had been processed within minutes by an agency under the jurisdiction of the US Department of the Interior, namely the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) based in Golden (close to Denver), Colorado.

“The National Earthquake Information Service (NEIS) of the U. S. Geological Survey is located at the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, Colorado, USA which also serves as World Data Center A for Seismology. The NEIS is a member of the Council of the National Seismic System (CNSS) which coordinates activities among the national and regional seismograph networks, including “finger quake” services. The NEIS is also closely associated with the U.S. National Seismograph Network (USNSN) and cooperates with national and international seismological organizations around the world. Unlike other members of the CNSS, the NEIS is responsible for reporting on moderate to large earthquakes throughout the U. S. and large earthquakes worldwide… On an immediate basis, all Earthquake Early Alerting Service alarm events will be made available to the “quake” list. At a minimum, this includes… most foreign earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 or greater. In practice, many foreign earthquakes smaller than a magnitude of 6.5 will also be provided on an immediate basis…” 

For further details: See http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/finger/qk_info.html
,
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/finger/qk_info.html
,
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_slav_ts.html
,
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/neic_slav_ts.html
,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/neic_slav_faq.html

The seismographic data did not originate at the PTWC, which is part of the Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Commerce.

The seismic data was recorded both within the Indian Ocean region and around the World by a number of stations, relayed to a network of seismic centers in a number of countries. (see below).

In other words, omissions and failures in the warning system, not to mention red tape, were by no means limited to the PTWC, which is integrated into a global information network which records, processes and transmits seismic data in near real time. Several key organizations (including the Earthquake Information Center World Data Center for Seismology, Denver (NEIC) and The European Space Agency (ESA) among others, are part of this network, and could have duly advised the countries concerned.

Where did the seismic data originate from? 

This issue, which is crucial to understanding the flaws in the seismic warning system, was barely mentioned by the media.

The data regarding the magnitude of the earthquake originated from four seismic stations located in the Indian Ocean, operated by the International Deployment of Accelerometers (IDA) Project . The Scripps Institution Of Oceanography (SIO) at the University Of California at San Diego overseas the IDA seismic stations.

In turn, the IDA is integrated into the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) and its Global Seismographic Network (GSN ), and into the data system of the National Earthquake Information Center World Data Center for Seismology, Denver (NEIC (WDCS-D)). (See Eric Waddell, The Tsunami: Why Weren’t They Warned? Jan 2005, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD501A.html )

“Received signals three minutes, thirty seconds after the quake began” 

In testimony to the US Congress (Jan 26, 2005), Scripps (SIO) Deputy-Director John Orcutt confirmed that “data telemetry”, namely the transfer of data immediately via phone line, cable, or satellite is central to the SIO’s mandate:

“Data acquired via telemetry may be used  … as [a] :tsunami warning:… Prompt transmission of the seismic data permits experts to locate earthquakes quickly, assess the likelihood they have generated a tsunami, and predict when the destructive wave will arrive. Such predictions have already saved numerous lives.”(SIO’s Project IDA, http://ida.ucsd.edu/Telemetry/index.html )

Scripps Dr. Orcutt also confirmed that on December 26, the data pertaining to the Sumatra-Andaman quake had been telemetered from 30 IDA stations and had been “immediately and automatically forwarded by computer to the USGS National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) in Golden, Colorado and the NOAA tsunami warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska”: 

“Due to their proximity to the event, IDA stations were critical in the early detection of the December 26th earthquake. The two closest global seismic stations, IDA stations on Cocos (Keeling) Island and Sri Lanka, received signals three minutes, thirty seconds after the quake began. Data from these and other IDA GSN stations in the region were used by the NEIC, and other civil, academic, and military systems to quickly determine the quake’s size and location.” (Statement to the Science Committee of the US House of Representatives, 26 Jan 2005. emphasis added).

Contradicting the substance of his own testimony, Dr. Orcutt stated that Scripps (SIO) officials got the news from the NEIC, by email one hour and 17 minutes after the earthquake, when in fact it was the Scripps IDA stations, that had transmitted the data in near real time to the NEIC in the first place, and that this data had been made available to other agencies, in the US and internationally:

“Scripps staff first learned of the quake at 6:16 PM PST (one hour seventeen minutes after the earthquake) when they received notice via automatic email from the NEIC of the initial earthquake detection. SIO [Scripps Institution of Oceanography] also received an inquiry from the IDA/Sri Lanka operator at 6:57PM (one hour fiftyeight minutes after the quake) asking whether there had been any earthquakes in or near Sri Lanka. The operator had received many phone calls from local residents who had felt tremors and wanted to know the source. SIO’s analyst replied at 7:13PM with information about the NEIC announcement of the earthquake and a plot of the seismic waves recorded by the IDA station in Sri Lanka.” (Ibid)

Not explicitly mentioned in Dr. Orcutt’s statement is that one of the Indian Ocean IDA stations, which transmitted seismic data on December 26th, DGAR (Diego Garcia) is actually located on the site of the US military base in the Chagos Archipelago. (DGAR became operational in January 2004). The other three stations are:

COCO (Cocos [Keeling] Islands located in an Australian administered territory,

PALK (Sri Lanka),

MSEY (Seychelles) .

In addition to the seismic stations of the IDA/IRIS network, the quake was recorded at stations in a number of countries including China, Russia and Japan, not to mention several “auxiliary seismic stations” in Indonesia as well as one in Sri Lanka. (Parapat, Sumatera PSI Auxiliary Seismic Station AS043 2.7 98 is the closest facility to the epicenter). (See http://ida.ucsd.edu/SpecialEvents/2004/361/a/index.shtml#parameters . Auxiliary Stations as  opposed to Primary stations do not transmit data in real time to the IDA)

The Chain of information

Seismographic data was transmitted in real time from the four IDA Indian Ocean stations DGAR (Diego Garcia),  COCO (Cocos [Keeling] Islands , PALK (Sri Lanka), and MSEY (Seychelles) to both the IRIS and NEIC centers, where they were then immediately retransmitted (in real time) to the PTWC as well as to other agencies and organizations.                                                                                                         

The latest station in the network established in Feb 2004 is Diego Garcia, DGAR.

Source:  http://ida.ucsd.edu/IDANetwork/index.html (click map to get Station information)

In other words, while the press reports acknowledge that the Diego Garcia island military base was formally notified of the dangers of a seismic wave, what they failed to mention was that part of the seismic data used by the PTWC to justify its advisory had in fact originated in Diego Garcia, and that the data from Diego Garcia (together with that of three other Indian Ocean stations) had also been transmitted to the IDA/IRIS and NEIC networks.

The US Military Base at Diego Garcia

The IDA/IRIS seismic station DGAR (Diego Garcia) , is in a vault located on the grounds of the US Air Force’s Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) station at the US military base. (The GEODSS Diego Garcia facility provides “space surveillance data” through three powerful telescopes. GEODSS also monitors moving objects and meteorites; concomitantly, it also uses seismographic data.)

The Seismic Station At Diego Garcia established in Feb 2004 transmits data to IRIS and NEIC

The seismic recording equipment installed in the underground vault. The sensors rest on the central pier, which is directly attached to the coral that underlies the vault so that the instruments can best record the shaking caused as seismic waves travel through the earth. 

While DGAR was established with the cooperation of the US military, it is categorized as a civilian scientific facility. The later uses the island’s military base’s communications facilities to transmit its seismic readings to the IDA/IRIS center in Seattle.

Whether the seismographic readings from DGAR were directly available to military personnel on location at Diego Garcia at the GEODSS facility is not known, although the Diego Garcia military authorities would most probably have near real time access to the seismic data monitored by NEIC and other seismic centers, which are hooked up to the Military.

In other words, in all likelihood, the US military had the relevant data on their computer screens within minutes of its transmission.

More generally, there are close interagency links between the relevant civilian and military entities. NOAA, while formally a civilian body under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, is headed by a former Vice Admiral, and NOAA Weather services, which oversees the PTWCs in Hawaii and Alaska is administered by a retired US Air Force Brig. General. (See  http://www.nws.noaa.gov/johnson_bio.php )

The Monitoring System of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBTO)

In addition to the IDA/IRIS stations, the International Monitoring System (IMS) of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) based in Vienna, operates several stations in the Indian Ocean region, three of which are in fact located in the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory). (See map below)        Two of these stations are situated directly on the site of the US military base. In other words, there are in all four stations in the Chagos archipelago, which use the communications system of the US military base.

The IMS confirmed that it recorded the December 26th earthquake at 78 of its stations, including those in the Indian Ocean in near real time,  “within seconds to minutes of the event.” (of the 78 IMS stations, 71 were using the seismic, six the hydroacoustic and one the infrasound technologies. The latter (infrasound station) was located within proximity of the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Archipelago.

The CTBTO confirms in this regard that “the first automatic event list containing the Sumatra earthquake was released by the International Data Center (IDC) in Vienna two hours after the event.” It nonetheless confirms that the “raw data from the monitoring stations” were communicated “in near real time” ( almost immediately) to national data centers of state signatories including Australia, Indonesia and Thailand. (See text of CTBTO Press Release ).

Four Monitoring Stations in the Chagos Archipelago

The first news reports underscored the fact that the US military base at Diego Garcia had been given advanced warning, but that the information reached military officials at the US island naval base “after” the tsunami had hit India and Sri Lanka:

 “An NOAA log shows that the US Pacific Command, including Diego Garcia, was given a specific warning about the tsunami some two and three quarter hours after the earthquake” (The Guardian, 7 Jan 2005)

The fact of the matter, as mentioned earlier, is that the data concerning the earthquake originated from monitoring stations situated on the site of the US island military base.  In other words, the US military base at Diego Garcia , with its advanced monitoring facilities, research labs, etc. was not the “recipient” but rather “the source” of the relevant data regarding the earthquake. (See Table 1).

It is the source not only of seismic information (not to mention satellite imaging) but of other types of data, used to ascertain the causes of an earthquake, from three other monitoring stations in the Chagos islands, which are linked up to the IMS/ CTBTO :

BIOT/Chagos Radionuclide Station (RN66) at Diego Garcia military base is a radionuclide station which monitors traces of radioactivity in the Indian Ocean basin

BIOT/Chagos Hydroacoustic Station (HA08)(Diego Garcia military base ), which has the ability of “detecting explosions on the ocean surface and under the water”

the BIOT/Chagos Infrasound Station (IS52) (located North of Diego Garcia, see map below) which “provides evidence of a possible atmospheric explosion by detecting sound pressure waves in the atmosphere”.

(see  http://pws.ctbto.org/verification/facilities/monfacoutput.dhtml?&vcol=a.name&vord=desc )

The Vienna based IMS also had relevant information, within minutes of the M-9.0 earthquake. To date, none of the data recorded at its Indian Ocean stations has been made public, although it is normally transmitted to the signatory governments and is no  doubt also available to the US military.

The functions of these three IMS stations under the CTBTO mandate are as follows:

“The IMS uses seismic, hydroacoustic and infrasound monitoring technologies to detect the transient signals created when the energy is released in underground, underwater and atmosphere environments, respectively. Radionuclide monitoring technologies collect and analyze air samples for evidence of the physical products created and carried by the winds. Seismic, hydroacoustic and infrasound, or the wave technologies, all utilize sensors which record signals from explosions and naturally occurring events in the form of digital waveforms. These digital waveforms or time series provide diagnostic information to detect, locate and characterize the energy source. Radionuclide technology is based on air samplers which collect and analyse atmospheric particulate matter deposited on collection filters. The analysis of the radionuclide content uniquely confirms the fact of a nuclear explosion.”

(For further details see, CBTO, The Global Verification Regime and the International Monitoring System, Vienna, 2001  http://pws.ctbto.org/reference/outreach/booklet3.pdf )

In other words, the data collected by the three Chagos islands IMS stations have the capacity of “registering shock waves emanating from a nuclear explosion underground, in the seas and in the air, as well as detecting radioactive debris released into the atmosphere.”

This data could shed light on the nature of the disaster, while also dispelling speculation by some news media that the tsunami could have been caused by an underground explosion.

It is therefore crucial that the readings from these three BIOT IMS stations, which are available to the signatory governments, be promptly released and analyzed.

Map of Diego Garcia Military Base and Chagos archipelago

Click image to enlarge

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/diego_garcia_pol80.jpg

In addition to real time seismic data (as well as hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide data), satellite images of the disaster on the North Sumatra coastline were also available in near real time to a number of agencies and international organizations.

The US has an advanced “spy satellite” system, with very precise capabilities of monitoring the terrain, including changes in the natural environment, not to mention moving objects. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), which was responsible for launching the first spy satellites of the Cold War era operates a sophisticated system of reconnaissance satellites, which transmit imagery and other data in real time.

The data received by the NRO are relayed to a number of US government/ military  bodies including the Department of Defense and the CIA.

As part of its mandate, the NRO has the ability to:

” warn of potential trouble spots around the World, help plan military operations and monitor the environment”

The NRO has close links to the Diego Garcia base from which it operates “The Global Broadcast System”, a special classified broadband communication system. “A GBS satellite parked above the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia relayed everything from video feeds of Predator UAVs, to video downlinks for special operations soldiers on horseback in remote regions of western Afghanistan.” ( See http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/articles/spacesupremacy.htm )

Another key US body, involved in satellite imagery is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, (NGA) , formerly known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.  The latter was in fact the architect of the global positioning system (GPS), which was conducive to creating a system of global geospatial intelligence (GEOINT).

NGA is part of the US defense system, it serves the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. It has very precise capabilities of monitoring the geographic and physical terrain by satellite, all over the world, using the techniques of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT).

Geospatial intelligence is described by the NGA as:

“the most valuable tool for envisioning and predicting activity around the World. It serves anyone from the White House to the pilothouse, from the Situation room to the ready room”

In other words, state of the art satellite imagery (available to military, intelligence, civilian as well as private commercial entities)  provides “a real time set of eyes”. With regard, to the M-9.0 tsunami of December 26, satellite images were available almost immediately. The US military confirms in this regard, that it has access from its satellite systems  “to vital intelligence in real time”. These real time images were used extensively in the Iraq and Afghan war theaters. (Hearings of Sen Armed Services Committee, 25 Feb 2004).

The European Space Agency

Real time seismic and other data (including satellite imagery) were also available to a number of countries including Russia, China, Japan  and the European Union.

In this regard, The European Space Agency (ESA ), which has links to NOAA, has “multi-sensor access” in real time to data from satellites including very precise imagery which allows:

“for complete large-scale phenomena to be observed to an accuracy and entirety it would take an army of ground level observers to match”

According to ESA ,

” a single satellite image has the potential to show the spread of air pollution across a continent, the precise damage done to a region by an earthquake or a forest fires, or the entire span of a 500 km, hurricane from the calmness of its eye to its outermost storm fronts. The same space based sensor gathers data from sites across the World, including places too remote or otherwise inaccessible for ground based data acquisition.”

In addition to imagery, the satellite transmits other relevant data which measures very accurately “ground motion” and “sea height”:

“Other sensors known as radar instruments actively shine microwaves pulses down to Earth in order to record how these pulses get reflected back up to space.

These instruments measure surface roughness instead of light or heat energy, and have the advantage of being able to see through cloud and darkness. And by combining together different radar images of the same location – a technique known as interferometry – tiny millimeter-scale ground motion can be identified.

A different type of instrument named an altimeter records very precisely the time it takes for a microwave or laser pulse to be bounced back to the satellite, measuring both land and sea height to an accuracy of a few centimetres.“(http://www.esa.int/export/esaEO/SEMH2Q1VQUD_index_0.html )

The European Space Agency (ESA) is part of a network. It is a member of the International Charter: Space and Major Disasters along with the Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Argentina’s Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE)

While “before” and “after” images of the disaster have been made public, the images which show the progress and movement of the tsunami, in the period immediately following the earth quake have not been released.

Concluding Remarks: The Need for an Investigation into the Warning System

More than a quarter of million people have died in one of the World’s most devastating natural disasters.

The overriding issues pertaining to the warning / information systems, cannot drowned or brushed aside. They must be the object of a full-fledged inquiry, preferably by an independent body.

This report has outlined a number of broad issues pertaining to the global information network. The latter requires detailed examination in the context of full-fledged inquiry.

What agencies in the US, the European Union, in the Indian Ocean countries and internationally were informed? The failures are by no means limited to the US seismic network.

When were they informed? What type of data did they have? Some of that data has not been released.

Why did the information not reach the people on time in the countries affected by the tsunami?

What factors, administrative, scientific or otherwise, contributed to preventing the information from being transmitted?

We are not dealing strictly with seismic data. Satellite images of the devastation in Northern Sumatra were also available. Other types of data were also transmitted in near real time by satellite.

In addition to the seismic data, the Vienna based IMS/CTBTO monitors and compiles hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide data, which is transmitted in near real time from its stations in the Indian Ocean (including three stations in the Chagos islands archipelago).

Moreover, satellite reconnaissance technology, not to mention the use of simulation models, have the ability to assess and monitor the speed of the tsunami in near real time.

The approximate speed of the seismic wave was known and confirmed. According to the news reports, the tsunami was moving at a speed of roughly 20 km a minute (on average) in relation to Sri Lanka.

The seismic information was known to the NEIC and other seismic centers within less than four minutes after the quake.

The tsunami hit the Indonesian coast within 5 minutes, in other words 10 minutes before the release of the first TPWC bulletin. Banda Aceh was hit by the tsunami 11 minutes after the earthquake, approximately 3 minutes before the release of the TPWC bulletin.

In other words, it was possible to predict in a very precise way, at what time the seismic wave would hit the coastlines of Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, The Maldives and Somalia. Had this information been transmitted in a consistent fashion, there would have been ample time to evacuate people from the coastal areas of Sri Lanka, India, not to mention the East coast of Africa.

There are no Ocean sensors in the Indian Ocean. But this was not the cause of the failures and omissions in the warning system.

The tsunami became active immediately following the earthquake. No warnings were sent out following the seismic readings despite the fact that the tsunami had already hit the Indonesian coast.

This is the key issue.

The Tsunami was active, and this was known, corroborated not only by seismic information but also by satellite images and other data, roughly 30 minutes prior to hitting Thailand.

---

Annex

Map: Animation Simulating the propagation of the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean .

Approximate Timeline

(based on News Reports published in the immediate wake of the earthquake)

Sunday 26 December 2004 (GMT)

00.58.50 GMT: a 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurs on the seafloor near Aceh in northern Indonesia.

01.02.20 GMT: IDA seismic stations in the Indian Ocean transmit data to the IRIS/IDA network and the National Earthquake Information Center World Data Center for Seismology, Denver(3 min 30 sec.  after the earthquake)

Shortly after 01.00 GMT: Earthquake hits several cities in Indonesia, creates panic in urban areas in peninsular Malaysia. The news of the earthquake is reported immediately.

01.04 GMT the tsunami hits the coast of Northern Sumatra ( roughly 5 min after the earthquake)

01.10 minutes after the earthquake it devastated Banda, capital of Aceh. (11 minutes after the earthquake)

01.14 GMT: The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii emits its first bulletin, confirming that there is no tsunami warning in effect.

01.3O GMT: Phuket and Coast of Thailand: The tidal wave hits the coastline after 8.30 am, 01.30 GMT

02:16 GMT (one hour seventeen minutes after the earthquake). SIO staff received notice via automatic email from the NEIC of the initial earthquake detection.

02.30 GMT: Eastern Coast of Sri Lanka is hit. The seismic wave hits the coastal regions close to the capital Colombo, according to report at 8.30 am local time,  02.30 GMT (approximately, an hour and a half after the earthquake)

02:57 PM:  One hour fifty-eight minutes after the quake, SIO staff receive request from Sri Lanka “asking whether there had been any earthquakes in or near Sri Lanka.”  (By that time the tsunami had already devastated the coast of Sri Lanka).

02.45 GMT: India’s Eastern Coastline. The tsunami hits India’s eastern coast as of 6:15 a.m.(02:45 GMT)

0.3.43 GMT:  NOAA log indicates that US Pacific Command, including the Diego Garcia military base, were “given a specific warning about the tsunami some two and three quarter hours after the earthquake” (The Guardian, 7 Jan 2005). Subsequent reports suggest that the Military received the seismic data in near real time shortly after the earthquake.

04.00 GMT: Male, Maldives: From about 9:00 am (04.00 GMT), three hours after the earthquake, the capital, Male, and other parts of the country were flooded by the tsunami. (more than three hours after the earthquake)

08.00 -11.00 GMT (according to news dispatches): East Coast of Africa is hit. Seven to ten hours after the earthquake (see animated map).

Table 1

FOUR MONITORING STATIONS IN THE BIOT CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO

1. IDA/ IRIS DGAR (Diego Garcia), Seismometer on the site of the US Air Force’s Ground-Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS) station at Diego Garcia. -7.3 S 72.4 E

2. IMS/ CTBTO BIOT Chagos Hydroacoustic Station (HA08) at -7.3 S 72.4 E located at the Diego Garcia US military base

3. IMS/ CTBTO BIOT Chagos Radionuclide Station (RN66) at -7.0 S 72.0 E located at the Diego Garcia US military base.

4. IMS/ CTBTO  BIOT Chagos Infrasound Station (IS52) at -5.0 S 72.0 E located near Peros Banhos Island

The IMS stations transmit data in real time to the CTBTO International Data Centre (IDC) in Vienna, The IDa station transmits data in real to IRIS and NEIC

Functions of CTBTO International Monitoring System

• The primary and auxiliary seismic stations  monitor seismic signals propagating through the earth from natural events (earthquakes) and man-made events (mining blasts and explosions);
• The radionuclide stations pick up traces of radioactivity following a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere or leaked from an underground nuclear test;
• The hydroacoustic stations detect explosions on the ocean surface and under the water; and
• The infrasound stations provide evidence of a possible atmospheric explosion by detecting sound pressure waves in the atmosphere.

Source: FAS

Table 2 IDA Project Links to Seismographic Readings

• Location map
• Initial source parameters
• 3 components [closest IDA station, COCO, clipped]
• 3 components [closest IDA station, COCO, non-clipped]
• 3 components [next closest IDA station, PALK, non-clipped]
• 3 components [3rd closest IDA station, DGAR, non-clipped]
• All IDA stations, vertical components, filtered
• All IDA stations, vertical components, low pass fliter
• Plot showing the accelerations observed at IRIS/IDA stations COCO and PALK superimposed on a figure depicting expected ground accelerations for varying distances and sizes of earthquake.

Source: IDA Project. Magnitude 9.0 quake off the west coast of Northern Sumatra (click to access the relevant data)

http://ida.ucsd.edu/SpecialEvents/2004/361/a/index.shtml#parameters

Figure 1: Seismographic readings for Dec 26, 2005 at Diego Garcia DGAR

click image to enlarge

Source: Project IDA, http://ida.ucsd.edu/SpecialEvents/2004/361/a/DGARunclip.gif

Table 3:

480 Stations sorted by distance from the epicenter recorded the seismic data

IRIS ONLINE DATA ON WILBER II

Event: 2004/12/26 00:58:50.7  OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATERA

(CLICK TO ACCESS EVENT,  SELECT  STATIONS AND PROCEED)

Mag: 8.5 Type: MS Lat: 3.30 Lon: 95.78 Depth: 10.00
Catalog: NEICALRT Contributor: NEIC Source: SPYDER®

480 Responding Stations  

Source: Wilber II

Table 4:

2004/12/26 00:58:50. First Four Responding Stations Sorted by Distance from the Epicenter (click station name to access seismographic readings)

name.net   (distance/azimuth)

 COCO.II (15.42°/176°) Coco Islands, Australia

 PALK.II (15.52°/285°) Pallekele, Sri Lanka 

  QIZ.IC (20.82°/40°)  Guandong Province, China

 DGAR.II (25.60°/245°) Diego Garcia, BIOT

Source: Wilber II

The Global Tsunami Warning System

While the PTWC failed to acknowledge the existence of the tsunami in its first two bulletins, the Tsunami was in fact monitored in real time by a number of monitoring stations of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to which the PTWC belongs.

Modeling enabled scientists to evaluate the traveling time of the tsunami. From the outset of the earthquake at 00.59 UTC on the 26th, tsunami waves were monitored by a number of stations. Moreover, NOAA has acknowledged that it had very precise satellite images which enables it to measure the height of the tsunami. These height measurements were available but were only processed at a later period (See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2365.htm )

NOAA: Tsunami Height Measurements (satellite) click to enlarge 

---

Related Global Research Articles

Foreknowledge of a Natural Disaster: Washington was aware that a deadly Tidal Wave was building up in the Indian Ocean, Michel Chossudovsky

The Tsunami: Why Weren’t They Warned? Eric Waddell

Discrepancies in the Tsunami Warning System, Michel Chossudovsky

US island base given warning: Bulletins sent to Diego Garcia ‘could have saved lives’ Richard Norton-Taylor

Senator Snowe Questions Absence of Tsunami Warning

Links to important sources of information:

Columbia University Earth Institute

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) , Washington D.C

IRIS network of  128+ (often unmanned) seismic monitoring stations worldwide.

IRIS Data Management Center in Seattle

International Deployment of Accelerometers (IDA)

IDA 40 stations worldwide,

IDA stations in the Indian Ocean:

COCO (Cocos [Keeling] Islands

PALK (Sri Lanka),

MSEY (Seychelles)

DGAR (Diego Garcia).

The National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC)

World Data Center of the National Earthquake Information Center in Denver, USA.

Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics , University of California, San Diego,

USGS United States Geological Survey

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA)

NOAA: West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center: Indian Ocean Tsunami of 26 December, 2004

NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, PTWC

NOAA West Coast & Alaska Tsunami Warning Center, WCATWC

DART: Animated TSUNAMI Warning System

The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program

International Monitoring System (IMS) of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO)

IMS monitoring Stations

Map of IMS Facilities (takes time to download)

IISSE:  Off Coast of Northern Sumatra Earthquake (Japan)

IISSE: Preliminary Results of Rupture Process for 2004 OFF COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA Giant Earthquake (ver. 1)

İstanbul Technical University, Department of Geophysical Engineering, Seismology Section

SUMATRA EARTHQUAKE (Mw~9.0) of DECEMBER 26, 2004 Source Rupture Processes and Slip Distribution Modelling

On Satellite Imagery

The European Space Agency (ESA )

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, (NGA)

Natural Hazards Research Websites

Satellite Images, Data and Information Websites

Earth Observing System, Direct Broadcast

Earth Science Info Project

Earth Observing System Data Gateway

EO PORTAL

Earth Observation Imagery Disasters

QUAKELINE: bibliographic database produced by the MCEER Information Service . It covers earthquakes, earthquake engineering, natural hazard mitigation, and related topics. It includes records for various publication types, such as journal articles, conference papers, technical reports, maps, and videotapes.

MCEER Joins Multi-lateral Reconnaissance Team to Investigate the Effects of the Tsunami/Earthquake Disaster in South Asia

Eqnet

Wilber II IRIS Event: 2004/12/26 00:58:50.7

International Charter: Space and Major Disasters

The International Charter aims at providing a unified system of space data acquisition and delivery to those affected by natural or man-made disasters through authorized users. Each member agency has committed resources to support the provisions of the Charter and thus is helping to mitigate the effects of disasters on human life and property.

View PDF of the Charter Pamphlet The International Charter was declared formally operational on November 1, 2000. An authorized user can now call a single number to request the mobilization of the space and associated ground resources (RADARSAT, ERS, SPOT) of the three agencies to obtain data and information on a disaster occurrence

Participating Agencies and Space Resources

The following Space Agencies are currently members of the Charter. Click on the name for more information about the Agency and its space resources.

Member

Space Resources

European Space Agency (ESA)

ERS, ENVISAT

Centre national d’études spatiales (CNES)

SPOT

Canadian Space Agency (CSA)

RADARSAT

Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)

IRS

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

POES, GOES

Argentina’s Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE)

SAC -C

International Charter: Tsunami 26 December (click for specific details)

Provides satellite images, before and after.

The images showing the progress of the tsunami on the 26th of Dec, obtained in near real time have not been released.

ESA (European Space Agency)  Earth Observation, Earthnet Online

Indonesia – Sri Lanka – Thailand – India
Earthquake/Tsunami – 26 December 2004

Envisat Altimetry

• Overview
• ENVISAT imagery
  • Sri Lanka
  • South-East India
  • Andaman / Nicobar islands
  • Thailand
  • Sumatra
• ENVISAT Altimeter
• PROBA imagery
• Further images and information

ENVISAT Radar Altimeter contribution

(Click on the thumbnail to enlarge the preview image)

For more information, please click here: http://www-dase.cea.fr

DOSSIERS DE LA TERRE ET ENVIRONNEMENT (FRANCE) at  http://www-dase.cea.fr/actu/dossiers_scientifiques/2004-12-26/index.html

EMSC Study:

European Mediterranean Seismological Centre

Mw 8.9 earthquake in Sumatra on December 26th, 2004 at 00:58 UTC           (Click for report)

University of Evora Study:

Source Rupture Process of Mw 9.0 26/12/2004 Sumatra earthquake

Earthquake (Mw=8.9) of 26 December 2004

Preliminary Results

José Fernando Borges, Bento Caldeira and Mourad Bezzeghoud

It was reported this morning (October 2) the Pentagon mail facility has received at least two packages containing the deadly poison ricin. 

Reminiscent of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks? (see below)

.

.

A piece of mail delivered to the Pentagon mail facility has initially tested positive for ricin, according to two US defense officials. https://t.co/xunCU5byRO pic.twitter.com/oS1DbXBez6

— CNN (@CNN) October 2, 2018

Immediately after the anthrax attacks in 2001, Bush neocons put pressure on FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove the mysterious attack was the work of al-Qaeda, a fantasy on par with Saddam’s WMDs. This story—the essence of fake news—left out something important: it takes complex equipment to prepare anthrax spores for weaponization and it was highly unlikely if not impossible for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to produce the substance in a remote Afghan cave. 

Both Bush and Cheney made the claim and the Wall Street Journal published an article linking the attack to Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Reports by ABC News followed after the late John McCain insisted the anthrax attack was the work of Iraq. McCain, celebrated as a true American hero after his death, was in cahoots with the Bush neocons to get a war going in Iraq. 

As #Ricin found at #Pentagon, a reminder of when investigators were under intense pressure from GOP to blame Islamic terror for Anthrax, & instead they followed facts until the likely culprit turned out to be an American scientist.

Head of investigation was Robert Mueller, btw. pic.twitter.com/pfNgVnfUCM

— Queen Leigh (@JBFletcher88) October 2, 2018

The anthrax attack dovetailed with other absurdist fake propaganda and helped promote the plan to invade Iraq. It was also instrumental in the passage of the Patriot Act, thanks to then Attorney General John Ashcroft haranguing the House Judiciary Committee.

The anthrax attack was exploited in standard problem-reaction-solution fashion. After the attack and media hyperactivity, the US once again began throwing money into biological warfare research. The government gave the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases $1.5 billion in 2003 and Congress passed Project Bioshield Act, which provided $5.6 billion over ten years for the purchase of new vaccines and drugs, thus providing transnational pharmaceutical corporations a welcome influx of taxpayer money. 

How long before a revitalized cadre of neocons folded within the Trump administration blame this attack on Iran or Russia? The UK set the example when it blamed Russia for the Skripal “Novichok” poisonings, a transparent and completely baseless accusation that was embraced by the US and its parroting corporate media. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

As late as February and March 1945 the SS commander Otto Skorzeny, and his forces, were enjoying military headway on the Eastern front, however brief and temporary at this stage. Skorzeny’s efforts to frustrate the heroic Soviet troops in their advance towards Berlin came against overwhelming odds, with German units under his command outnumbered by as much as 10 to 1 in places.

As the war was reaching its inevitable end, Skorzeny applied the unconventional and direct stealth criminal tactics learnt during his time as a commando, saying that,

“You cannot waste time on feinting and sidestepping. You must decide on your target and go in”.

Skorzeny’s exploits were once more not lost on Hitler, whose respect for the lieutenant-colonel had continued rising, helped by him also being a fellow Austrian. With increasing numbers of Hitler’s underlings deserting him in their bid to escape Soviet armies, the Nazi leader was becoming an isolated figure back in Berlin.

Towards the end of March 1945, with Skorzeny having returned to the German capital, he saw Hitler emerge from a conference room in the now besieged Reich Chancellery.

Skorzeny writes, in his 1975 book My Commando Operations, that when Hitler recognized him in the corridor, “he came forward and put out his hands”, saying,

“Skorzeny, I want to thank you and your men for all you have done on the Eastern front. For days on end there was no good news except from your bridgehead. I have awarded you the Oak Leaves to the Knight’s Cross, and will give it to you personally in a few days”.

On 9 April 1945 he received the decoration, one of the highest military honors in Nazi Germany. Near war’s end, at 36 years of age, Skorzeny was at the peak of his global prestige and physical powers – known as “the most dangerous man in Europe”, resulting in America’s supreme commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, having his personal security presence significantly bolstered in western Europe.

Skorzeny cut a formidable figure at six feet four inches tall with peaked cap, binoculars and Iron Cross, while draped in Waffen-SS tunic and winter overcoat. The scar on his left cheekbone running down to the chin, inflicted in 1928 during a dueling bout, betrayed itself when approaching close to him.

Having been involved from the June 1941 launch of Operation Barbarossa with the SS division Das Reich, Skorzeny was long acquainted with his Russian adversaries, whom he called “brave, tough and with an outstanding sense of camouflage, they put up astonishingly bitter resistance”. He dedicated his extensive 1975 memoirs to “the true heroes of the Second World War, the common Russian and German soldier”.

Yet Skorzeny believed the Wehrmacht “would have taken Moscow in the beginning of December 1941 if the Siberian troops had not intervened”, recalling how, “In the clear weather, I could see the spires of Moscow and the Kremlin with my field glasses”. Soviet resilience and gallantry intervened to rescue Moscow from a terrible fate, with those qualities resurfacing a year later at Stalingrad almost 1,000 kilometers further south – though the latter city was torn to shreds by German artillery and infantry fire, allied to Luftwaffe bombardment.

In his book published 30 years after the war, Skorzeny writes that after a discussion in early 1943 with the rocket engineer Wernher von Braun, Hitler predicted mankind would be able to venture into space. Skorzeny purports that Hitler said,

“I am convinced that this young scientist [Von Braun] is right when he says that in his opinion more powerful rockets would be capable of exploring space surrounding the earth, and perhaps even several planets in our solar system”.

In October 1944, Skorzeny claims that during a personal meeting Hitler told him how “humanity would inevitably exterminate itself” if atomic bombs were successfully developed. This latter viewpoint was supported by the prominent Nazi war minister Albert Speer who noted Hitler’s belief, in June 1942, that the planet “might be transformed into a glowing star” should nuclear research be pursued.

During his encounter with Hitler in late March 1945, Skorzeny observed “what a tired and bowed old man” he had become. Years of an unrelenting workload for the Nazi dictator, in the face of growing crises on both eastern and western fronts, had taken a major toll. Whereas quite as recently as the summer of 1942, Hitler had walked about with back and shoulders bolt upright – such as during his June 1942 visit to south-eastern Finland, in meeting that nation’s leader Carl Mannerheim – by late 1943, however, Hitler had developed a stoop and was noticeably deteriorating.

In his years in power before the war (1933-39), Hitler was known to dedicate himself to hard work but only as the occasion demanded it. When no major events were on the horizon, Hitler relapsed again into his idle ways; this often included staying up until the early hours watching light entertainment films with his inner circle. The war precluded such luxuries, however.

As the fighting wore on there was little respite and, particularly as events turned sour, Hitler overextended himself by becoming consumed with the fighting across various fronts. Quite aptly, Hitler’s physical decline mirrored that of the Reich itself, which was disintegrating from 1943 onward under firestorms released by Allied bomber aircraft.

As the war advanced, the crimes of Nazi Germany (and the insidious and direct role of Otto Skorzeny) had yet to peak, such as the genocide committed in the death camps, and continuing onslaughts against Soviet populations.

In Skorzeny’s memoirs, such as the original published in 1957, it is remarkable that he fails to mention the Nazis’ various atrocities and the fate of Jewish peoples. There is an absence of accountability on Skorzeny’s part for the great bloodshed spilled by this murderous organization of which he was an integral part (ie. through his membership of the SS). He was fully aware and supportive of the butchery in the USSR and of the death camps run by the SS.

Indeed, Skorzeny remained an unapologetic Nazi, a strong admirer of his leader who he felt that, “By killing himself, Hitler saved thousands of lives” as his death “relieved us of our oaths as soldiers”.

Skorzeny placed much blame for the Reich’s defeat on acts of “permanent treason”, in particular criticizing Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, who was hanged by the SS just weeks before Berlin’s fall. The behavior of high-ranking Nazis at the postwar Nuremberg trials “depressed” Skorzeny, as he had expected that,

“they [Nazi leaders] would at least preserve their dignity and stand up for things they had advocated and practised for years past, so it was a terrible blow to me to find many high Nazi dignitaries proving themselves pitiable weaklings at Nuremberg”.

A few years before, Skorzeny had first met Hitler on 26 July 1943, when he was summoned to the Wolf’s Lair headquarters in East Prussia, 700 kilometers from Berlin. Skorzeny had been thunderstruck upon receiving the invitation, but he was unaware that his burgeoning reputation had attracted the attention of Heinrich Himmler, the SS Reichsführer.

During this opening meeting, Skorzeny was stirred by Hitler’s glowing admiration for the deposed Mussolini, with the Nazi dictator insisting,

“I cannot and will not leave Italy’s greatest son in the lurch. To me the Duce is the incarnation of the ancient grandeur of Rome… I will keep faith with my old ally and dear friend”.

The operation to secure Mussolini from Allied control was proving increasingly complex, riddled with angst and frustration. After several false leads, Mussolini’s probable location was traced to the Hotel Campo Imperatore, located over 2,000 meters above sea level on a mountain grassland, and 100 miles east of Rome.

In executing such operations, Skorzeny was loath to open fire – and learned that the enemy, stunned at his unit’s swift arrival and advance, was often paralyzed with confusion. The first Italian sentry at Mussolini’s mountainside prison was rooted to the spot, responding only to Skorzeny’s shout of “Hands up!”, that was duly obeyed.

With his eyes scanning the hotel’s exterior, he spotted a bewildered Mussolini looking down at him from a first story window. Less than five minutes later Skorzeny was standing opposite the ill-dressed Italian dictator, saying to him,

“Duce, the Führer has sent me. You are free!”,

to which Mussolini replied,

“I knew my friend Adolf Hitler would not leave me in the lurch”.

Not a shot was fired during the entire escapade, which represented something of an embarrassment for the Allied powers. The date was 12 September 1943, exactly seven weeks to the day since Hitler had given orders to carry out the task.

After the war Skorzeny would be placed on trial in August 1947 at Dachau, southern Germany, having been interned by the Americans since war’s end. The charges were his adoption of US military insignia during the 1944 Ardennes Offensive, theft of American uniforms and Red Cross parcels. He was not indicted for crimes against humanity.

On 9 September 1947, the case began falling apart when England’s secret agent, Tommy Yeo-Thomas, testified that he and his men wore German uniforms behind enemy lines. In the years ahead, Skorzeny led a nomadic and controversial existence, residing from Argentina, Spain and onto Ireland, continuing his fascist policies and beliefs.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Early on October 1, the Aerospace Division of the Iranian Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) carried out a ballistic missile strike on ISIS targets in Syria’s Euphrates Valley. The IRGC launched at least six ballistic missiles, which, according to the IRGC, killed and injured a large number of terrorists in the area near al-Bukamal.

The Iranian media added that the missiles employed belonged to the Qiam and Zolfaghar families. One of the missiles shown by the media bore the slogans “Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to Al Saud” and the phrase “kill the friends of Satan”.

Following the missile strikes, the IRGC employed at least seven unmanned combat aerial vehicles to further pound what it described as the HQs and gatherings of the “mercenaries of global arrogance”. The UCAVs, which were used, seem to be the Thunderbolt type, which was developed thanks to a reverse-engineering of the US-made RQ-170 UAV.

The October 1 strike was described as a response to the terrorist attack, which had targeted a military parade in the Iranian city of Ahvaz on September 22. At least 25 people were killed and 65 others were injured in the attack claimed by ISIS. However, the Iranian leadership has gradually accused the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE of being, at least indirectly, behind the attack.

Commenting on the missile strike, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Baqeri stated that it was just the first stage of the response to the Ahvaz attack vowing that “there will be other stages of revenge as well.”

It’s interesting to note that the Iranian attack took place close to the area, from which ISIS had allegedly been cleared by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The SDF kicked off its advance on ISIS positions in the Hajin pocket about 3 weeks ago. However, so far, the SDF has achieved only limited gains in the area, even according to its own statements.

On October 1, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russia will continue to fight terrorism in Syria.

“The fight against terrorist organizations in Syria goes on, and we should continue this fight,” he stated that Moscow’s position on “the illegitimate presence of foreign troops and foreign armed forces in Syria” remains clear.

Meanwhile, additional details appeared on the shape of the upgraded Syrian air defense system after the delivery of S-300. Viktor Bondarev, the chairman of the Russian parliament’s upper house Defense and Security Committee stated that the air defense system will be fully centralized. This would allow coordination between Syrian and Russian means and facilities in the war-torn country to be increased.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Yesterday marked the 80th anniversary of the Munich Agreement, one of the most shameful and tragic chapters in the history of the foreign policies of Britain and France and one that constituted a pivotal factor in the outbreak of the second world war, the most destructive conflict in the history of mankind, in which the Holocaust occurred.

This is not to castigate the governments of Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier for wanting to avoid another world war.

The traumas of the Great War were ingrained in the minds of British and French statesmen and this should not be overlooked or downplayed.

Nor should the benefit of hindsight cloud our judgement when assessing British and French insistence that any changes to the existing world order were to be initiated through negotiations rather than by force.

Rather, this article will highlight the ramifications for Europe of Britain and France agreeing to Czechoslovakia being ceded to nazi Germany, without even Prague’s consent; how London and Paris rejected appeals by the Soviet Union for a collective security pact to deter Adolf Hitler from territorial aggression; how Poland, having signed a non-aggression treaty with Hitler, annexed Czech territory following the agreement at Munich; and how the nazi-Soviet pact did not cause the war in Europe.

Following Hitler’s demands for the Sudetenland to be handed to Germany on the spurious claims of discrimination against ethnic Germans residing in this region by the Czech authorities, Britain and France decided to enter into negotiations with Hitler, in a policy known as appeasement.

The British and French prime ministers travelled to Munich in September 1938 to attend the Munich Conference.

In attendance were Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Italian leader Benito Mussolini. At no time during the conference was Czech president Edvard Benes invited to attend — an astonishing absence in light of how the conference centred on part of Czechoslovakia being ceded to another country.

Indeed, the British and French governments did not even make a representation for Czech participation at Munich. That Hitler resented the Czechoslovakian state was no defence. London and Paris should have acted in accordance with the founding principles of the League of Nations regarding state sovereignty.

But for Hitler, the message was clear. If Britain and France were prepared to disregard Czech sovereignty, then they would probably do the same over Polish sovereignty too.

Another conspicuous absence at Munich was that of the USSR.

Despite Moscow being a major power on the European continent and having concluded in 1935 a treaty with Prague on mutual assistance in the event of either country being attacked, the Soviets were left out of the conference, which made the Kremlin feel increasingly suspicious of British and French intentions.

Furthermore, the failure of Chamberlain and Daladier to insist on Soviet representation at Munich made Hitler feel even more confident that Britain, France and the Soviet Union would not form an anti-nazi alliance between themselves. Hence it bolstered his determination to achieve a German-dominated Europe.

Shortly after midnight on September 30 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed by Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini, in which the Sudetenland was handed to Germany.

The British and French gave a piece of a country’s territory away that was neither theirs in the first place nor theirs to give.
Following the signing, Chamberlain told president Benes of Czechoslovakia that he should not resist the German annexation of the Sudetenland and that, if he did, Czechoslovakia would be on its own to face Germany.

The Munich Agreement played a pivotal role in the outbreak of the second world war, which British and French politicians and journalists today are either ignorant of, downplay or refuse to accept.

Following the acquisition of the Sudetenland, Hitler felt emboldened and certain that his territorial designs on Poland would not provoke a military response from Britain and France.

Furthermore, the German leader’s confidence, after Munich, received a further boost when Germany’s absorption of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 did not provoke even the slightest of reactions against Berlin by London and Paris.

Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal told me:

“September 30 1938, is a day that the West likes to forget. If Europe really wants to remember how World War II began, I would propose the day that Chamberlain and Daladier met with Hitler and Mussolini to carve up Czechoslovakia.”

Following the coming to power of the nazis in January 1933, the leadership of the Soviet Union became increasingly alarmed over the language emanating from Berlin, especially concerning nazi pronouncements of securing Lebensraum in Russia.

By the end of 1933, the USSR had begun taking the first steps in seeking collective security with Britain and France and also with smaller states such as Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Moscow’s quest for collective security would last until August 1939, when the Russians realised that, despite their endless efforts, the British and French would not agree to a collective security treaty with the Soviet Union.

Now, it is one of history’s “what ifs” concerning whether Hitler would have been deterred from territorial expansion, for instance, over the Sudetenland, had there been in place a collective security alliance between Britain, France and the USSR.

Perhaps it is the case that nothing was ever going to deter the nazi leader from war. However, it is conceivable that, with the combined might of the British, French and Soviet militaries, Hitler might have, at the very least, scaled down his plans for Europe. After all, in Mein Kampf, Hitler had argued against fighting on two fronts.

I would like to dispel two myths that have been propagated by politicians and journalists in Britain.

The first concerns the portrayal of Poland in the 1930s as an almost angelic country. There is little, if any, talk in British quarters over how Poland signed a non-aggression pact with the nazis in 1934 and how Poland, as a result of the Munich Agreement, annexed the Zaolzie region from Czechoslovakia.

Alas, it was not only the nazis who dismembered Czechoslovakia but Poland, too.

The second myth concerns the Nazi-Soviet Pact, signed in August 1939 between Berlin and Moscow.

Today, British politicians and journalists, whose knowledge of the inter-war period is more or less confined to Wikipedia, claim that the treaty between nazi Germany and the Soviet Union caused the outbreak of the second world war. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that Moscow signed the non-aggression pact with the Germans because its leadership believed that the only way to preserve the security of the USSR, after its quest for collective security with London and Paris had failed, and to buy time for an inevitable conflict with Germany — though Stalin was not convinced of this inevitability — was to sign an agreement with Berlin.

Hitler agreed to the pact with the Soviet Union so that this would give him a free hand to fight France and Britain, without the fear of the Soviets attacking him from the rear. In short, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was not a pact of friendship but a pact of convenience.

On the 80th anniversary of the Munich Agreement, Britain and France have a moral responsibility to apologise to the people of the former Czechoslovakia for disregarding their country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to recognise the enormous ramifications for Europe and its people of the shame and tragedy that was Munich.

And it is high time that British and French politicians and journalists alike learn about the Soviet Union’s search for collective security with London and Paris to deter Hitler from aggression because, had the Russians been successful, it is just possible that the most devastating war in history could have been averted.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Morning Star.

Featured image is from the author.

This was hell week in New York City. Traffic was paralyzed from one end of the narrow island to the other as bigwigs and their entourages flocked to the city for the fall opening of the United Nations.

Making matters worse, President Donald Trump chose the occasion to lambast nations he does not like in a crude display of boorishness not seen since Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on his desk at the General Assembly back in 1960.

Trump reserved special venom for his pet bêtes noirs, Iran and China. His jeremiad against Iran was reportedly written by senior aide Stephen Miller, a rabidly anti-Muslim extremist who speaks with the voice of Israel’s expansionist far right.

Trump reiterated his doctrine of American ultra-nationalism. Political and economic nationalism are his credo. The president claimed he had indeed made America great again, whatever that means.

The president’s speech was greeted by derisive laughter from the General Assembly, a first in UN history.

I was reminded of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous bon mot, ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Indeed it is.

And of the words of the late British professor, A.P. Thornton: ‘Patriotism is the first platform of fools.’

Patriotism is poison. Dictators, despots, lunatics – and too many democratic politicians – use it to inflame popular passions to enhance their power. There is nothing wrong with loving and respecting one’s homeland. Canadians offer a fine example of quiet national pride without obnoxious flag-waving and bullying.

But everything is wrong with unleashing toxic nationalist emotions to promote empire-building or eradicating whole peoples. Look at the current horrors in Burma and the recent mass crimes in Bosnia.

As a former soldier and war correspondent, I cringe when I see all the faux patriotism of sports events, chants of ‘USA, ‘USA,’ and pro-war propaganda on TV. Having walked many of the battlefields of World War I, on which millions died, I detest the kind of patriotic cant that ended the civilized glories of pre-war, 19th Century Europe. The idiotic cries in 1914 of ‘on to Berlin’ and ‘on to Paris’ haunt us. Their modern version was ‘Get Saddam’ and ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.’

Trump, who sees himself as more an emperor than democratic president, continues to press for war with Iran, egged on by the cabal of pro-Israel advisors that surround him. Billionaire gambling king Sheldon Adelson pulls the strings from just backstage.

Now, in a new eruption of paranoia, President Trump just claimed that China was trying to rig this fall’s elections. How? By placing tariffs on US agricultural exports to China to punish Trump’s many supporters in the farm belt.

Add Trump’s economic war against Turkey which had locked up an American evangelical pastor accused of involvement in the attempted 2016 coup against the elected government. This contrived furor was clearly aimed at pleasing Trump’s core evangelical supporters. No matter that America was spitting in the face of old ally Turkey whose soldiers had saved many American GI’s during the 1950-53 Korean War and allows the US to keep nuclear weapons at its Incirlik air base.

Unfortunately, many Americans who have never known war at home since 1865 are all too eager to follow a path to war provided it’s far away and a turkey shoot. But now, having bombed all the usual Muslims and ravaged the Mideast, our national security state has to face the ominous reality that the US may have to confront real, big-time enemies, Russia and China. This clearly invokes the nightmare threat of a nuclear confrontation.

President Trump, who thundered at North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, ‘my nuclear button is bigger than yours,’ is not the best pilot to guide his nation through dangerous waters. While Trump has some solid advisors – generals Mattis and Kelly – he is also surrounded by a coterie of political fanatics, many plucked from the political gutter. Trump’s unnecessary trade wars and embargoes could easily lead to shooting wars.

We don’t need nationalism, we need wise, cautious leadership.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

For as chaotic as “The Kraken” [Donald Trump] is, he’s not likely to let the House of Saud fall even after insultingly telling its King that he might be out of power within two weeks if it wasn’t for the protection afforded to him by the US military.

Trump’s fondly referred to as “The Kraken” by his many supporters who love his deliberately chaotic approach to destroying the previous world order (i.e. “The New World Order”), but while there remain plausible scenarios for the American-encouraged “Balkanization” of Saudi Arabia along the “Blood Borders” model, it’s not likely that the he’s going to go forward with the dismantlement of the Kingdom anytime soon like some people might think. The reason why this is even being talked about at all nowadays is because the President ominously warned the Saudi King “might not be there for two weeks without us”, which is why he should supposedly fork up more money for the protection afforded to him by the US military.

For as ruthless of a businessman as the billionaire is known for being after earning his fortune in the cutthroat sphere of New York City real estate, he probably won’t ever hang Saudi Arabia out to dry if Riyadh doesn’t more generously reimburse him for his military’s services because he can’t bear the thought of Iran attempting to take advantage of this. The US has been seriously concerned about the spread of the Islamic Revolution all throughout the Mideast ever since its 1979 success in Iran, and there’s no way at this moment in time that it’s going to take any chances that its hated foe could expand its influence in this strategic region by ideological proxy and therefore gain control of most of the world’s energy resources.

It’s true that the US participates in Riyadh’s royal conspiracies from time to time and probably does have an interest in working through these shadowy backchannels in order to slow down Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s developing strategic partnerships with multipolar leaders Russiaand China, but he’s not going to withdraw the US Military Training Mission(USMTM) to the country or the suspected CIA drone base there as he maneuvers to squeeze more money out of the Kingdom. Ensuring Saudi Arabia’s external security is one of the US’ chief national interests anywhere in the world for the aforementioned reason having to do with Iran, which is why Washington will always work to thwart Tehran’s plans in the Kingdom.

To be clear, there does indeed exist an unclear level of genuine domestic opposition to the monarchy that has nothing to do with Iran and everything to do with the country’s governing structure itself, but the US doesn’t play any direct role in suppressing this, not even thorough the USMTM. (US Military Training Mission to Saudi Arabia)

It can be argued that US training and equipment greatly aids the Saudi security services in their efforts to deal with these challenges to the royal family’s rule, but it’s still indirect support in this case unlike the direct military intervention that the US would undoubtedly carry out if Iran launched a conventional attack against its nemesis. What the US really wants from Saudi Arabia, then, is for it to commit to purchasing more American weapons.

The global media made much ado about Trump’s claim in May 2017 that he signed a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, but the truth is that only around a quarter of those deals were even in the pipeline at the time. Trump clearly wants the Kingdom to go through with the spirit of this highly publicized photo shoot because of the boon that it’ll be for the US’ military-industrial complex and the strengthening of the two parties’ system of complex strategic interdependency that would result from this. In other words, it would be a double win for the US because the country would make billions off of this arrangement while also embedding itself even deeper into the Saudi military apparatus.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Kingdom is mulling the purchase of Russia’s S-400 state-of-the-art anti-air defense systems after having earlier signed deals for Kornet-EM anti-tank missiles, TOS-1A systems, automatic AGS-30 grenade launchers, and Kalashnikov AK-103 assault rifles during King Salman’s historic visit to Moscow exactly one year ago in October 2017, and that China is building a drone factory inside of Saudi Arabia too. The US sees the writing on the wall when it comes to the shipment of arms to Saudi Arabia from multipolar countries just like Russia sees the same when it comes to the export of arms to India from unipolar ones, and it’s therefore taking proactive steps to secure its hitherto dominance in one of the world’s largest weapons markets.

For as “politically correct” as it may be for people under the influence of Alt-Media Dogma to believe that the House of Saud would fall in two weeks’ time if the US discontinued all of its military support for the Kingdom, that probably won’t happen because “Israel” would pick up the slack to protect its unofficial ally from any speculative Iranian attack and the country’s internal security forces won’t suddenly lose the skills that they acquired from years of high-quality training which has thus far enabled them to successfully suppress all internal challenges to the royal family’s rule. Therefore, Trump’s ominous warning should be interpreted as a negotiating tactic to pressure Saudi Arabia into fulfilling the $110 billion arms deal that it signed with the US in May 2017 and not as anything more.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

Over the past few weeks, the degree of tension between Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate has significantly grown. The meeting of the two patriarchs, not expected to be fruitful, took place on August 31 and on September 7, the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced the appointment of its exarchs (plenipotentiaries) in Ukraine. 

The struggle for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has become the main theme of the world Orthodoxy during the last six months. Many are inclined to see this as a confrontation between the two capitals of the Orthodox world – Constantinople and Moscow, the “second” and “third” Rome. Both Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia claim their canonical rights to the Ukrainian lands. For both, the battle for Kiev is of utmost importance: the winner will consolidate the title of the head of the Orthodox believers and severely undermine the opponent’s authority.

However, the triumph of one of them will be ruinous for the Orthodoxy as a whole – a painful Ukrainian question will likely cause another historical schism in Orthodox Christianity. Patriarch Kirill is already threatening to cut ties with Constantinople in case the latter provides the Tomos of autocephaly. It is not necessary to explain what consequences implies the withdrawal of more than 100 million of believers from the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Christian world would become truly multipolar: alongside with Catholic Rome we’ll witness two more – “Constantinople Rome” and “Moscow Rome” – all struggling to expand their influence.

Why is Constantinople against Moscow?

In the current situation, the “Doomsday Clock” of Orthodoxy is closer than ever to midnight. The meeting of the two patriarchs on the last day of summer was designed to defuse the situation, but, apparently, provoked Bartholomew to an even tougher anti-Moscow rhetoric than before. He once again designated the rights of Constantinople to Ukraine, declaring the illegitimacy of the letters on the transfer of the Kyiv Patriarchate to Moscow in the 17th century. In his speech (for some reason published not on the official portal of the Ecumenical Patriarchate but on the website of the UOC in the US), he also showed truly ecumenical ambitions, identifying the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the “leaven”, that is, with the quintessence of the Orthodox faith, and accused those who “do not respect the decisions of Fanar”, of disrespect to the Orthodoxy in general.

Nevertheless, on the eve of the meeting of the two patriarchs, the anti-Moscow sentiments in the Ecumenical Patriarchate were triggered from outside. So, on August 27, the Associated Press published an article in which Russian intelligence agents were accused of hacking the e-mail accounts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate hierarchs. In May, the Order of St. Andrew that represents the interests of the Fanar in the United States blamed Moscow for disseminating information about the ties between Constantinople and the Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen. One can also recall the events of 2016, when the ROC and several Orthodox Autocephalous Churches ignored the Council of Crete convened by Bartholomew. According to sources close to Bartholomew, he considered this a personal insult from Patriarch Kirill. Besides, the Patriarch of Constantinople intends to show Kirill once and for all who is the “boss” in the Orthodox world.

A possibility to avoid the split

But should the head of the Ecumenical Patriarchate be guided by personal motives in dealing with such complex issues as granting autocephaly to the Church in a country that is drawn into the war in its eastern regions, an economic crisis and internal disputes? According to the aforementioned sources, many of Fanar hierarchs clearly understand the consequences of the autocephaly, but this issue is supervised by Bartholomew personally and he is not ready to make concessions.

Unfortunately, in this situation, there is only one option that will more or less suit both sides and, most likely, will not lead to a split. This is an Exarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine. Bartholomew will receive his share of influence in this predominantly Orthodox country, and Kirill will preserve some of his positions. In the current situation, granting the Tomos to the pro-government Church will by default lead to a sharp increase in pressure on the part of believers and clergymen, who have at least some ties with Moscow. Given the number of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (according to the most biased estimates – at least 20%) and their prevalence throughout the country, this can lead to a large-scale interfaith clashes. It is extremely important not to allow this to happen and create a single Autocephalous Church in Ukraine only after the conflict is resolved. At the same time, despite any objections from Moscow, this process should be implemented by Constantinople, and not by the ROC, whose image has been highly demonized by Kiev.

It would be great this is understood at the Fanar, and Archbishops Daniel of Pamphylia and Hilarion of Edmonton, appointed on September 7, would engage in “healing the schism”, that is organizing a “peacemaking exarchate” and setting up the process of reunion of the divided believers.

Ambiguous patriarchs

Another factor that complicates the autocephaly bestowal is the issue of choosing the new Church’s head. The Primate of the UOC of the Kyivan Patriarchate Filaret is considered to be the main contender for this post, but a great number of complexities are associated with his name. In 1997, for attempting to achieve independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Moscow Patriarchate anathematized Filaret, which was de facto recognized by all local Orthodox Churches. The “Kyivan Patriarchate”, created by Filaret, did not receive recognition in the Orthodox world and is still considered “uncanonical”. Alongside with the fact that Filaret himself carried out a rather aggressive policy outside of Ukraine, seizing parishes on the territories of other local Churches and supporting various non-canonical communities around the world, he earned an unsavory reputation in Orthodoxy.

The world of Orthodox Christianity is quiet and very conservative. Despite the changing political situation in Ukraine, no one has rehabilitated Filaret so far (therefore, even in the speech of Bartholomew his title “patriarch” stands in inverted commas), and the UOC-KP created by him remains unrecognized. Sudden abolition of the anathema and recognition of the head of the Kyiv Patriarchate is a troublesome task and will hardly have a positive impact on the reputation of the Fanar, especially considering that the Patriarch of Constantinople has recognized this anathema for 30 years, avoiding meetings and joint services with the “Kyivan Patriarch”. In addition, Bartholomew hardly forgot how Filaret denied Constantinople the autonomy of the UOC-KP and the UAOC as parts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate back in 2008. Now, the Fanar is rumored to avoid appointing Filaret Primate of the new Church, which makes him seek options to fortify his position.

However, whoever becomes the leader of the new Ukrainian Church, one thing is obvious: its creation at this point of time will have devastating consequences for the entire Christian world. Now everything depends on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. He is already compared by many with the notorious Patriarch Melety IV, who managed to rule three local Churches, introduced the Gregorian calendar, incorporated into the Constantinople Patriarchate the Finnish and Estonian Archdioceses, which had belonged to the Russians, advocated unification with the Anglican Church, was a member of the Masonic Grand Lodge of Greece and even tried to implement the second marriage for the clergy, which is as unthinkable for the Orthodox Christians as the second marriage of laymen for the Roman Catholics.

By the way, incumbent Patriarch Bartholomew has already managed to “authorize” the second marriage for clergymen at a recent meeting of the Synod of the Constantinople Church. Now he faces a historic choice: to be remembered in the Christian chronicles as a peacemaker, a progressive fighter for the environment and equality, or as the initiator of the bloodiest religious division in Europe in the 21st century.

The question is whether he will take a decision that will move the “Doomsday Clock” to midnight, or whether the “judgment day” of Orthodoxy will be postponed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Boiko Hristov is an investigative journalist based in Bulgaria.

Left, Right details the Canadian Left’s promotion of colonial policies and nationalist myths.

Yves Engler’s latest book outlines the NDP’s and labour unions’ role in confusing Canadians; from Korea to Libya, Canada’s major left-wing political party has backed unjust wars; Canadian unions supported the creation of NATO, the Korean War, the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the Bay of Pigs invasion and the coup in Haiti.

Left, Right also shows how prominent Left commentators concede a great deal to the dominant ideology. Whether it’s Linda McQuaig turning Lester Pearson into an anti-US peacenik, Stephen Lewis praising Canada’s role in Africa, or others mindlessly demanding more so-called peacekeeping, Left intellectuals regularly undermine the building of a just foreign policy.

Left nationalist ideology, both Canadian and Quebecois, has warped the foreign policy discussion; viewing their country as a semi-colony struggling for its independence has blinded progressives to a long history of supporting empire and advancing corporate interests abroad.

Even many victims of Canadian colonialism among indigenous communities have succumbed to the siren song of supporting imperialism.

Finally, Left, Right suggests some ways to get the Left working for an ecologically sound, peace-promoting, non-exploitative foreign policy that does no harm and treats others the way we wish to be treated.

Friday, Oct. 5, 6 pm
Montréal
Salle de Revolution, 3720 Avenue du Parc
Multi-author launch including John Grande and Maia Stepenberg
Sponsor: Black Rose Books

Wednesday, Oct. 10, 7 pm
Ottawa
25 One Community, 251 Bank St (2nd floor)
Sponsor: Octopus Books
http://octopusbooks.ca/event/left-right-—-marching-to-the-beat-of-imperial-canada-book-launch-with-yves-engler

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2:30 pm
Winnipeg
Menno Simons College, University of Winnipeg, 102-520 Portage Ave Room TBA

Wednesday, Oct. 17, 7 pm
Winnipeg
Université de Saint-Boniface, 200 Avenue de la Cathedrale, Room 2322
Sponsor: Peace Alliance Winnipeg
https://www.facebook.com/events/968363916703546/
Sponsor: Peace Alliance Winnipeg

Thursday, Oct. 18, 5 pm
Regina
Knox-Met United Church,
2340 Victoria Ave, Room 105
Sponsor: Regina Peace Council

Saturday, Oct. 20, 1 pm
Prince Albert
The Mann Art Gallery
Sponsor: Council of Canadians Prince Albert

Sunday,Oct. 21, 2 pm
Saskatoon
615 Main Street
Sponsor: Turning the Tide Bookstore (turning.ca) & Council of Canadians Saskatoon

Monday, Oct. 22, 7 pm
Edmonton
University of Alberta Education Centre South,
Room 158
Sponsor: Palestine Solidarity Network

Tuesday, Oct. 23, 7 pm
Calgary
Community Wise Resource Centre (Old Y Building) 223 12 Ave SW
Sponsor: Justice for Palestinians
https://www.facebook.com/events/2062566467100837/

Wednesday, Oct. 24 7 pm
Calgary
Mount Royal University Jenkins Theatre
(A debate on Canada’s Israel policy)
Sponsor: Rational Space

Thursday, Oct. 25
Nelson
Location TBD
Sponsor: Mir Centre for Peace & Council of Canadians Nelson

Friday, Oct. 26
Kelowna
Okanagan College, 1000 K.L.O. Road
Sponsor: Kelowna Peace Group

Saturday, Oct. 27.12:30 pm
(A discussion of Canadian mining policy)
Vancouver
Location TBD

Tuesday, Oct. 30 6 pm
Vancouver
SFU Harbour Centre (515 West Hastings Street) room 7000
Sponsor: SFU Institute for the Humanities & Lawyers Rights Watch Canada
https://www.facebook.com/events/562967147452951/

Thursday,Nov. 1, 7 pm
Victoria
University of Victoria, Harry Hickman Bldg Room 105
Sponsor: Social Justice Studies & Victoria Peace Coalition

November 2
Victoria
(A discussion of NDP Palestine policy)
Location TBD

Monday, Nov. 5, 6 pm
Courtenay
Library, 300 6th St

Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2:30 pm
Nanaimo
Sponsor:  Vancouver Island University
Sponsor: Political Science Department

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave another one of his typical U.N. speeches last week in which he accused Iran of having a “secret atomic warehouse”:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told the United Nations on Thursday that his intelligence agents had discovered a “secret atomic warehouse” in downtown Tehran, escalating a growing confrontation with Iran and setting up a direct challenge to its government to open the facility to inspectors and prove it is not in violation of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran denied the accusation, and Netanyahu’s claim was subjected to widespread ridicule in Iran. The location of the facility that he identified was in a remote village whose name, Torquzabad, called to mind the Farsi expression for “nowhere land,” and the building that he identified as the warehouse is a former carpeting cleaning site. Holly Dagres describes the reaction from Iranians:

A group of young Iranian men wasted no time and visited this so-called nowhere land right after Netanyahu’s speech. “Don’t bother coming here—there’s nothing here,” they laugh in a video popularly shared on social media. Since the video, Iranians are now using the Persian carpet cleaning facility site as an opportunity to post selfies. At least two were featured on the frontpage of Iranian newspapers. Even the Chief of Staff for the Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, weighed-in on the speech on Twitter with the Persian hashtag #Torquzabad and a photo of himself and other high ranking officials laughing.

Euronews sent a reporter to talk to the locals in the village, who found the idea that the site had anything to do with nuclear materials preposterous:

“Somebody must have given him (Netanyahu) this information to fool him,” says one Iranian citizen who owns a nearby carpet cleaning business. “Look at this place and you’ll notice it is nothing. Its owner doesn’t even have enough water to drink. Their water was cut off by the Water Organization for being in debt — now he is supposed to be making atomic bombs?”

At most, the location may be a storage site for documents:

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States is aware of the facility Netanyahu announced and described it as a “warehouse” used to store “records and archives” from Iran’s nuclear program.

A second U.S. intelligence official called Netanyahu’s comments “somewhat misleading. First, we have known about this facility for some time, and it’s full of file cabinets and paper, not aluminum tubes for centrifuges, and second, so far as anyone knows, there is nothing in it that would allow Iran to break out of the JCPOA any faster than it otherwise could.”

Netanyahu’s claim that the facility held “massive amounts of equipment and material” appears to be completely unfounded. The IAEA doesn’t need to inspect this site because there is no reason to think that there is anything there. Netanyahu has made a habit of making false and overblown claims about Iran’s nuclear program for decades. He has been consistently wrong about Iran’s nuclear program, but his statements continue to be taken seriously in the West. Netanyahu keeps trying to mislead the world into believing his alarmism about Iran’s nuclear program, but his warnings have been so wrong for so long that Western audiences should know by now to stop listening to him.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Ververidis Vasilis /shutterstock.

Colonial media is an instrument of Empire. Its unstated purpose is to advance the cause of war and terrorism. The Truth for Peace is not on the agenda.[1]

Colonial politicians mirror this agenda. They are fronts for the warmongers who are committing an overseas holocaust, as they thirdworldize North America. They propagate the Lie that the wars are “humanitarian”. The notion that Canada has or will have a “feminist” foreign policy[2] as it supports global war and terror, is beyond ridiculous.

According to colonial media, Syria and Syrians (including Syrian women) are the “Other”. They do not count.  Their human rights do not matter. Their voices are not important.  We can “humanely” slaughter and terrorize them.  They deserve it. 

The reality is that most Syrians choose NOT to be occupied by the West’s al Qaeda terrorists, and that they rejoice in their liberation from terrorist-occupied areas.

#Syria: This is liberated #Aleppo two days ago. 300.000 people took part in I Love Aleppo Marathon. In Aleppo, they create everything. They create life.#FromSyria pic.twitter.com/UGSlHDJbrK

— Ahmad Al-Issa (@ahmadalissa) September 30, 2018

Canadian men and women too would rejoice under similar circumstances. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Notes

1. Arjun Walia,”Professors and Politicians Gather to Warn Us About the New World Order (NWO).” Global Research, October 01, 2018/Collective Evolution 27 October 2015. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/professors-and-politicians-gather-to-warn-us-about-the-new-world-order-nwo/5655694) Accessed 2 October, 2018.

2. Matthew Behren, “‘Bombs not homes’ defines Trudeau’s feminist foreign policy.” rabble.ca, 28 September, 2018. (http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/09/bombs-not-homes-defines-trudeaus-feminist-foreign-policy) Accessed 2 October, 2018.

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The October 1 general election campaign in Quebec unfolded as two distinct contests. One was the competition between the Liberals and Coalition Avenir Québec for control of the government. The other was a battle between the Parti québécois and Québec solidaire for hegemony within the pro-sovereignty movement.

In the end, the CAQ replaced the Liberals in government on a platform that claimed to offer “change” but in substance promises even more of the same capitalist austerity inflicted on the Québécois under successive governments since the mid-1990s. PLQ support is now heavily concentrated in its minority Anglophone enclaves of western Quebec.

The real change, however, was registered in the surge of support for Québec solidaire, which more than doubled its share of the popular vote and elected 10 members to the National Assembly, one more than the PQ’s total under the vagaries of the first-past-the-post electoral system. Although the PQ received slightly more votes, it was a crushing defeat for the party founded 50 years ago by René Lévesque that as recently as 2014 had governed the province. Jean-François Lisée, defeated in his own riding by the QS candidate, immediately announced his resignation as PQ leader.

In part, this split in popular support reflected a generational shift; pre-election polling showed QS in advance of the PQ among voters under the age of 35. But it also reflected to some degree a class divide, a rejection among younger voters of the PQ’s record as itself a party of capitalist austerity and its regressive catering to white settler prejudice in sharp contrast with Quebec’s increasingly pluricultural composition, as well as a growing determination among many that Quebec sovereignty, to be meaningful, must be integrally connected with the quest for fundamental social change.

QS: A Political Force in Contention

Throughout the campaign, the mainstream media featured the argument that this was the first election in which Quebec sovereignty was not at issue. But they largely missed the significance of these shifts within the pro-sovereignty movement as it continues to radicalize.

For Québec solidaire, the election campaign was an opportunity to win support for the party’s ideas, recruit new members, and build its organization and influence, including in regions outside Montreal. On all counts, it appears to have been successful. On the eve of the election, political columnist Michel David, in the pro-PQ Le Devoir, had to admit that “the emergence of QS as a political force that is in contention from now on has been the outstanding feature of the campaign now closing.”

The party now has 20,000 members in a province of 8.3 million.¹ Just over half of its candidates in Quebec’s 125 constituencies, or ridings, were women, including a Muslim in a Montreal riding and an Inuit in a far-north riding. Two of its successful candidates are former leaders of Option nationale, another sovereigntist party which merged with QS last year. In Montréal’s Mercier riding, Québec solidaire’s first elected MNA, Amir Khadir, now retired, was replaced by Ruba Ghazal, a Palestinian-Québécoise.

In many ridings, dozens of members worked full-time during the campaign, while hundreds of others canvassed from door to door or staffed the phones to talk to voters. Party leaders toured the province in a specially chartered bus. In the months prior to the election and during the campaign, the party held mass assemblies, some drawing an audience of up to a thousand or more.

Image: “For the creation of the first country in the world founded with the indigenous.”

Party members were urged to design their own posters to illustrate major themes in the QS platform. The results (visible here) were audacious and astute, with a hint of the élan registered in the 2012 “maple spring” student upsurge. This is a party with some good ideas… and a sense of humour.

Building the QS

In televised debates between the leaders of the four major parties, QS co-spokesperson Manon Massé managed to publicize some key proposals in the party’s platform to a wide audience, even if she was not always successful in her explanations due to her inexperience and the time constraints. With her calm demeanour, a contrast to the loud and sometimes insulting exchanges between the three male leaders whose party programs differ little in neoliberal substance, she portrayed QS as a party that could legitimately sustain its claim to offer a radical progressive and feminist alternative to the capitalist parties. She was, as one media commentator said, the “real revelation” of this campaign.

Québec solidaire’s progress in the campaign marks a new advance in a process of rebuilding and recomposition of the left in Quebec that began about 20 years ago and proceeded through a series of fusions among different left parties and feminist and community activist movements: the formation of the Union des forces progressistes in 2002, the fusion of the UFP with Option Citoyenne in 2006 to form Québec solidaire, and the fusion of Option nationale with QS in 2017.²

Image: QS campaign bus, rear view: “In Quebec, we pass on the left to get ahead.”

For most of its history, QS has been swimming against the current in Quebec politics. Since the narrow defeat of the 1995 referendum on sovereignty, austerity programs and cutbacks in services implemented by PQ and Liberal governments have seriously weakened the trade unions and unravelled the social fabric of key Quebec institutions and facilities. The women’s movement is almost unique in maintaining a major presence in civil society. More recently, however, a burgeoning environmental movement has managed to stop (at least for now) the Energy East pipeline project and oil and gas fracking in the St. Lawrence river valley. (It will now have to contend with the CAQ’s pledge, as the new government, to resume fracking on Anticosti Island.)

The massive student upsurge that shook Quebec in 2012 may have marked a turning point in the anti-neoliberal resistance; one of the leaders of the movement for free post-secondary education, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, joined Québec solidaire early last year and is now the party’s co-spokesperson along with Manon Massé. When he joined, the party signed up 5,000 new members.

Québec solidaire had high hopes in this election. It began preparing for it last December. The same congress that voted to fuse with Option nationale debated and adopted proposed planks in its election platform, although shortage of time meant that large parts of the platform were adopted instead by the party’s National Committee in May of this year. The platform is derived from the party’s program, adopted over the past decade in successive congresses, each devoted to particular aspects.³ The election platform was assembled from parts of the program addressed to what were considered issues of prime importance and demanding the most urgent attention.

Meanwhile, QS activists worked hard to line up a strong slate of candidates and to develop the publicity and other materials that would help them in their campaign appearances. Nomination meetings in some cases saw real contests among potential candidates and were well-attended, especially in ridings with hundreds of QS members.

Quebec Politics in Context

The political context offered some openings. Quebec’s Liberal party, which has governed for 13 of the last 15 years, was deeply unpopular as a result of its extreme austerity, its treatment of healthcare – rampant burnout among nurses (but huge increases in doctors’ incomes) – abhorrent conditions of seniors in long-term care facilities, decrepit schools, poor infrastructure maintenance, and a succession of major corruption scandals.

The Parti québécois has lost faith in its founding idea, the creation of a sovereign but capitalist Quebec, now linked inextricably with the PQ’s record of “zero deficit” austerity during its terms in office since 1995; the party has put the quest for sovereignty on ice for at least the next four years. It lost the last election after its short-lived government initiated a deeply divisive Charter of Values that stigmatized ethnic minorities, especially Muslim women. Entering the election campaign as the third party in the polls, the PQ could no longer pose as a “lesser-evil” alternative government option.

The Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), a third capitalist party formed in recent years by right-wing dissident péquistes and former Liberals, was ranking ahead of the others in pre-election polling. But while it spoke of “change,” it soon was clear in the election debates that the party would, if anything, push Quebec further to the right. Its platform appealed to suburban voters with promises of wider highways and “strong” and “more efficient” government, with no mention of climate change, greenhouse gases or urban sprawl. Its leader François Legault, who personally appointed the party’s candidates – a majority were women, so as not to be outflanked by QS in this regard – campaigned most distinctly to lower by 20% Quebec’s quota for “economic immigrants”⁴ and impose mandatory tests on French language proficiency and knowledge of “Quebec values” on citizenship applicants; if they failed they would be “expelled,” he said, although he later retreated on that threat. PQ leader Jean-François Lisée said his party would admit mainly immigrants who already speak French.

This left Québec solidaire as the only party promising progressive change. What did it propose? As the party’s election materials are only in French, of course, I will summarize some major provisions.

Climate Crisis

Québec solidaire was the only party to put the climate crisis at the centre of its campaign.

“The fight against climate change is the biggest challenge of our century,” said the party in introducing its 86-page “Economic Transition Plan,” entitled Now or Never.⁵ Human activity is responsible for the increasing ecological imbalances and humanitarian disasters, so radical government action is needed. Many of the party’s proposals for action before 2030 cannot be implemented within Quebec’s jurisdiction under the Canadian constitution; in the present context, these necessary measures can only be implemented by a sovereign Quebec, it notes.

A scientific consensus, QS reminds us, dictates that by 2050 global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must have declined by 80 to 95% from the 1990 level if climate warming is not to exceed the critical threshold of a 1.5^o C increase.

But in Quebec GHG emissions decreased by only 9 per cent between 1990 and 2015. There is no more time for half-measures, says QS. A QS government, it pledges, will by 2030 decrease these emissions to 48% of the 1990 level.⁶ “A colossal collective effort is needed,” it says. Quebec does not lack the necessary means or know-how. What’s missing is

“political will, blocked in part by the Canadian government’s obsession with petroleum and the lack of commitment of the provincial elites…. Our plan is conceived within the perspective of a Quebec that is marching toward its independence, to provide itself with the tools needed to carry out the transition. This is the real meaning of sovereignty, of a people who themselves direct their economy and its relationship to the territory.”

Transportation is responsible for 40% of GHG emissions in Quebec, and Québec solidaire proposes to expand public transit, to rapidly phase out petroleum-fueled vehicles and to reduce the carbon content in inter-city transport. Among its many specific measures, the platform proposes:

• Free public transit within 10 years; in its first term, a QS government would cut fares by 50%
• Nationalization of inter-city transportation and a big increase in service
• High-speed transportation (the technology to be determined) between Montréal and Quebec City, followed by links to other cities
• An $8-billion increase in transit infrastructure spending, and $20-billion more by 2030 with special attention to electrification of trucking (e.g. establishment of “electric highways”⁷)
• No further road construction projects other than for safety or linking remote regions.

Renewable Energy Development

Québec solidaire proposes a major increase in diversified renewable energy production through wind (to be placed under “public control”), solar (to be promoted by state-owned Hydro-Québec), and geothermal energy. Oil and coal are to be replaced for home heating purposes by production of “second generation biofuels” manufactured from non-food biomass (e.g. plant and animal waste). As well, the party would ban subsidies for fossil fuels and all exploration or exploitation of these energy sources on Quebec territory.

A novel proposal is QS’s plan to establish large-scale battery production under “public control,” taking advantage of Quebec’s extensive lithium deposits.

Proposals to improve land management and agriculture include restrictions on urban sprawl, promotion of food sovereignty and organic agriculture, and a tax reform to help municipalities fund an ecological transition, including possible replacement of property taxes with more equitable and regionally oriented funding provisions.

Building construction is another major source of GHG emissions in Quebec. QS would reform the building code to require energy efficiency ratings in every project. And it proposes to “repatriate” the Quebec portion of the federal “tax free savings account” program (currently valued at close to $80-billion), and replace it with a Quebec “sustainable housing” TFSA that would allow individual investors to use up to $50,000 of their tax-free investment on energy-efficient renovation of their residences, managed by Quebec’s energy transition agency.

The Quebec government’s existing environmental advisory agency, the BAPE,⁸ would be strengthened and mandated to insist on free and informed consent of indigenous communities for any development project on their lands.

In its 2018 election platform, QS proposes that communities be given a veto over mining permits, that mines be obliged to maintain reserve funding adequate to restore extraction sites, and that mining royalties be assessed at 5% of the gross value of output. At present, royalties on Quebec mines generate annual revenues of only $100-million on production valued at $8-billion. The other three parties propose no change in this arrangement, nor do they agree to the QS proposal to subject all mining projects to environmental assessment by the BAPE.

Development contracts would no longer award priority to the lowest bidder, ignoring environmental externalities.

Once independent, Quebec would review its refugee reception policy to provide for assistance to climate-change refugees.

Under the heading “Democratic Transition,” a QS government would adopt an annual carbon budget, setting an annual limit on GHG emissions. Every major investment project involving state financial participation must include a climate impact assessment. A transition program would fund retraining of affected workers in the petroleum and other affected sectors, with special provision for women and immigrants.

The party estimates that its climate change measures, taken as a whole, will create 300,000 new jobs. These in turn should increase state revenues by about $6.5-billion in income and direct taxes, but also municipal revenues by $9.7-billion, not to mention the one percentage point of the provincial sales tax a QS government would allocate to municipal governments. However, QS does not include these revenue sources in the costing of its transition plan because they do not involve direct government expenditures.⁹

Ecosocialist?

Despite these positive measures, the Quebec solidaire climate change proposals are open to criticism from an ecosocialist perspective. For example, the party’s election platform promises to retain Quebec’s current cap and trade emissions program which it operates together with California (and until recently with Ontario), even though it recognizes that its impact on GHG emissions is extremely limited – and the party’s program opposes both carbon trading and carbon taxes, the first described as a speculative tool for enriching multinational corporations, and the second as a regressive tax on the poorest.

The platform says cap and trade will be maintained for now since it will help to generate funding for the party’s proposed ecological transition. During its first term a QS government will design and implement a form of progressive taxation to replace cap and trade. However, its promised carbon price of $110 per ton by 2030 falls far short of constituting an effective price on pollution.

Also problematic is the QS platform’s lingering accommodation to the car culture. For example, it promises that by 2030 only hybrid or electric cars will be eligible for sale, and low-income consumers will be subsidized if they buy an electric car to replace a gasoline-powered vehicle that is more than 12 years old. In fairness, however, the platform does note that “once collective transportation within and between cities is in place, some old habits will have to be discouraged,” and it promises increased fuel taxes and bridge and highway tolls “adjusted to social and family situations” to be implemented in coming years. The transition plan concludes:

“Infinite growth in a finite world is not a viable or desirable projet de société. It is a dead-end, and we must abandon it…. We will not be content with improving a system that has shown over and over how flawed it is. Our government will orient the economy in terms of human needs, which are inseparable from the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. By putting in place the conditions of a new relationship to the natural world and to human activity, we will lay the foundations of an environmentally friendly economy.”

“We also think,” it adds, “that beginning with our first term in office we must undertake a break with the Canadian federation in order to be able to carry out this plan…. To carry out a coherent ecological transition by affirming our sovereignty is the best way to proceed in solidarity with the peoples in the rest of the world.”

Equality, Not Austerity

Among the many other progressive measures listed in Québec solidaire’s 2018 election platform the emphasis was on reversing the harsh austerity regime enforced by successive PQ and Liberal governments since the mid-1990s and the need to expand social programs and benefits. These included proposals such as:

• Free and accessible public education from pre-school to university, to be implemented within five years. Promotion of local neighborhood schools. School curriculum to be determined by communities with input from teachers and parents. Education on sex, gender equality, history (the latter to incorporate contributions from indigenous and ethno-cultural communities). Improved French language teaching and cultural integration. No public funding of private schools. Increased pay for teachers, job security, and respect for their professional autonomy.
• Public medicare to include universal dental care. Establishment of pharmacare for group purchases and generic drugs, and creation of a public universal drug insurance plan. Local clinics (CSLCs) to include psychiatric care, mid-wife services, expanded home care support, with increased funding. Doctors to become employees with reduced wages. Environmental impact studies on the health of workers and communities in extractive industries.
• Equitable justice. Establish a universal legal aid plan. Raise small claims limits to $30,000. Support community legal clinics. Decriminalize simple possession of all drugs and treat drug dependency as a public health problem. Reduce the number of jail sentences of less than two years through establishment of alternative programs. Indigenous justice to be based on autonomy of their communities and practices. Recognize as fundamental the right to demonstrate, and the right of students to strike. Create an independent, impartial and transparent police oversight body.
• Food sovereignty. Encourage small producers. Protect seasonal workers. Protect supply management but ensure fair distribution of production quotas to assist second-generation family farmers. Support organic agriculture, local production. Prevent over-fishing. Protect farmlands from speculative purchases and free-trade agreements. Farmer union pluralism, eliminating the state-enforced monopoly of the agribusiness-dominated UPA.¹⁰
• Income and employment. Include self-employed and domestic labour in state pension plans. Defined benefits, not contributory, and indexed to the cost of living. Citizen representation on pension boards. Increased pension benefits for low-income and special-needs families. A $15 minimum wage, indexed annually. A pilot-project on basic income.
• Fair taxation. New tax brackets to account for differences in income, these brackets to be applied to all types of income with few exceptions. Increase corporate taxes. Fight tax evasion and avoidance. Restore the capital tax on financial corporations. Municipalities to be allowed to generate independent revenues and made less dependent on property taxes.
• Strengthened labour rights, including multi-employer union certification. Anti-scab legislation. Right to strike on social issues. Four weeks vacation after one year employment. Stronger protection for worker health and safety.
• Housing to be listed as a right in the Quebec Human Rights Charter. Construction of 50,000 eco-energy efficient homes per year, with special attention to fighting homelessness. A stronger rent-control board. A national housing rental registry. End legal victimization of the homeless, including the indigenous who are over-represented in this population.
• Electoral reform. Establish mixed proportional representation: 60% of seats awarded to candidates winning a plurality of votes, 40% to be distributed among parties and regions proportionate to their share of the popular vote. Preferential voting at the municipal level. Male-female parity among all party candidates and cabinet members. Institute direct democracy mechanisms, such as participative budgets. Organize an Estates General on funding of news media. Provisional government support for alternative and independent media.
• A feminist Quebec. Gender-differentiated analysis in designing programs and policies, taking into account other forms of domination and discrimination. LGBTQ recognition at all levels, including in seniors’ homes. Public education to combat stigmatization, harassment of sex workers. Public campaign against sexual violence.
• A plural Quebec. Increased funding to community agencies working with immigrants and cultural communities. Affirmative action for minorities in the public service and firms with 50 or more employees that benefit from government contracts and subsidies. Recognition of foreign diplomas. Foreign farm workers to have access to community social programs, francisation and integration. Allow them to unionize.
• Language rights. Apply Law 101 (Charter of the French Language) to firms with 10 or more employees. (The current threshold is 50 employees.)
• For a sovereign Quebec in solidarity with the indigenous peoples. In its first mandate, a QS government would provide for election of a Constituent Assembly to draft a constitution for an independent Quebec, which would then be put to a popular referendum for adoption. During the transition to independence, a QS government would keep the Canadian dollar but create a national currency and a public central bank at the appropriate time. A parliamentary committee would calculate the fair allocation of Quebec’s share of the federal debt. Quebec would adopt the UN Declaration on Indigenous rights, and would implement the 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would assist indigenous nations in their efforts to preserve their languages and traditional cultures.

Preparing for Independence, Then Implementing It

In many parts of its platform documents, Québec solidaire separates proposals realizable in the first term of a QS government, prior to independence, from longer-term measures in the party program; in its climate action platform, the longer term is 2018 to 2030. Where it does not do this, limiting its proposals to first-term provincial action within the constraints of the federal state, the proposed measures are comparatively modest.

For example, the section entitled “For an economy serving the common good” calls for redefining the mandate of the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement (the government pension-funds investment agency) to include social and environmental values and job creation, with more citizen representation on the board and more attention to regional and indigenous development projects. It would also redefine a “sharing economy” to include tighter controls on Uber, Airbnb, etc. A “public bank” is to be created to serve public institutions, households and firms.

However, the QS program, addressed to measures to be implemented in an independent Quebec, states that the party intends to “go beyond capitalism” and to “explore alternative economic systems.” It will no longer consider economic growth as an objective in itself and will assign less importance to the GDP and more to considering the “social and economic externalities caused by economic activity.” In the long run, it says, QS aims for “the socialization of economic activities.” Its proposal for “social transformation” will be based in particular on

“a strong public economy (public services, state enterprises and nationalization of major firms in certain strategic sectors) and on promotion and development of a social economy (cooperative, community sector, social enterprises). A certain place will be maintained for the private sector, particularly for small and medium enterprise.”

Moreover, nationalized firms will operate in a system of “national and democratic planning” and be placed under “decentralized management” by boards composed of “the workers, state representatives, elected regional officials, citizens’ groups and First Nations, etc.” And within these firms the organization of the work will be self-managed by the workers themselves.

The program also calls for establishment of a state bank either through creation of a new institution or “through partial nationalization of the banking system.” Banking will be considered a public service, with much tighter regulation of credit, currency and fees to clients.

A similar dichotomy between election platform and party program can be observed in the platform’s discussion of “international solidarity,” which is addressed in an essentially provincialist framework, notwithstanding some very progressive proposals on this topic in the QS program for the international policy of a sovereign Quebec.

Red-baiting

Naturally, the QS surge in campaign opinion polling provoked a closer scrutiny of its plans, and not only by sympathizers. Although the QS platform is not explicitly “anti-capitalist” or “socialist,” the party’s right-wing critics were quick to draw their own conclusions. Columnists and editorial writers dug out the QS program and cited some of its major propositions in order to warn voters that the party was much more dangerous than Manon Massé’s smiling disposition might suggest.

In Le Devoir, Paris-based columnist Christian Rioux drew attention to Québec solidaire’s links with European socialists. He pointed to parallels between the programs of QS and La France insoumise, the party led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon. In a message to a QS congress last year, hadn’t Mélenchon referred to QS co-spokesman Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois as “a brother in struggle”? Both parties, moreover, had been founded with Communist party support.¹¹ Indeed, wasn’t QS very similar to those “far-left parties” rising almost everywhere, like Die Linke in Germany, Syriza in Greece, or Podemos in Spain? And hadn’t Manon Massé gone to Catalonia last year where she consorted with the CUP,¹² a “radically anticapitalist party”?

Less informative was columnist Denise Bombardier, writing in Le Journal de Montréal. “Manon Massé is making light of us by disguising the real nature of her party, which is nothing other than a copy of the Western communist parties that plunged the 20th century into the totalitarianism that collapsed with the Berlin wall.”

But it was Parti québécois leader Jean-François Lisée who led the attack. “Québec solidaire is anchored in Marxism and anti-capitalism and is controlled in secrecy by a dogmatic, sectarian current,” he said. In a televised leaders’ debate, where he was asked to outline the PQ approach to healthcare, Lisée instead turned on Manon Massé, asking who was the real leader of her party. Although most viewers probably recognized it as an attempt to belittle Massé’s leadership capacities, many péquistes and solidaires also recognized it as an expression of Lisée’s frustration over the QS membership’s rejection in a party congress last year of his proposal for an electoral alliance, initially supported by some QS leaders.¹³

Not to be outdone, former Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe chimed in with a personal attack on Massé. Among other allegations, he said her French is so poor that it disqualifies her from becoming prime inister. Referring to Massé’s self-acknowledged difficulties in English, as revealed in the English-language TV debate,¹⁴ he said sarcastically that her English is “as good as her French.”¹⁵

However, these attacks on QS may have backfired. They did not sit well even with other PQ leaders, and Lisée had to acknowledge that he was called to account by, among others, his deputy leader Véronique Hivon, who is reported to have refused to campaign with him for several days. Such incidents revealed the real panic that had seized the PQ as QS surged in the polls – as well as the elitist rancour of some nationalist protagonists grown accustomed to the bipartisan PQ-Liberal alternance in government.

Duceppe’s attacks on QS provoked the Bloc Québécois leadership in Quebec City to call on “all independentist voters” in the area to support QS candidates Catherine Dorion and Sol Zanetti. “Their unpretentious and refreshing discourse paves the way to a new generation of frank and determined MNAs,” the local BQ stated on its Facebook page. This prompted the Bloc’s parliamentary caucus in Ottawa to declare its adherence to the PQ, equating as always the “interests of Quebec,” which it claims to defend, with those of the PQ.

If most election coverage in the corporate media was hostile to Québec solidaire, it was a different – although mixed – story in the independent and alternate media. Presse-toi à gauche, an on-line weekly periodical that supports Québec solidaire, published many articles highlighting the QS campaign and its implications. Of particular interest was a series of profiles and interviews with QS candidates that appeared each week. Most were authored by Pierre Beaudet. They gave a perceptive view of what the campaign looked like “on the ground” and the diversity of the party’s candidates. Some examples:

• Andrés Fontecilla, a former QS president, contested Montreal’s Laurier-Dorion riding for the third time. The riding has many “cultural communities,” as multicultural environments are labelled in Quebec: in this case many Greeks and South Asians. Fontecilla himself is of Chilean origin. This year QS was joined by a small group of Indian and Pakistani youth with roots in the left in those countries and who are active in community groups. Working in Fontecilla’s campaign were more than 300 party members, eight of them full-time. He was even publicly endorsed by Pierre Céré, his PQ opponent in 2014. Andrés won election on October 1.
• Ève Torres, a mother of three wearing the Muslim hijab or headscarf, was the QS candidate in Mont-Royal-Outremont. The riding contains a large Anglophone population, relatively well-off. But there are also large communities coming from Asia, Africa and the Maghreb. In Outremont, 25% of the population are Hassidic Jews. A feminist and antiracist activist, Ève Torres was heavily involved in fighting Islamophobia during the controversy sparked by the PQ and Liberal attempts to dictate clothing codes to ethnic minorities. She reports that “little by little, we are shaking off the amalgam that many people make between the PQ, identitarianism, and sovereignty support…. I am not saying it is easy to explain the national question to people from Bangladesh, or even from the Maghreb, but when we manage to have a discussion, there is an opening.” And how does she deal with those uneasy about her headscarf?
  

  “I support secularism, although not the French version, which excludes those who are not part of the majority culture. The question of Islam, in any case, is not really posed in political terms. I am feminist, left-wing, I fight for gay rights. In my view, women’s rights are not negotiable in any society, including ours. Our rights cannot be bargained in the name of any religion whatsoever. I say that while not renouncing for a single second my adherence to the Islamic religion.”

• Several QS candidates were openly gay or lesbian. Simon Tremblay-Pepin, the party’s economics spokesperson, ran in the Montréal riding of Nelligan. He was profiled by Fugues, “the magazine of Quebec gays and lesbians,” as was Élisabeth Germain, the QS candidate in Charlesbourg riding in Quebec City. Divorced, aged 72, she was asked whether sexual orientation should be private only or “transparent.” Her answer:
  

  “I think it is important to be transparent when it is relevant, but I don’t think we need to take the initiative in announcing all of our characteristics. For my part, I emphasize why I am active; I think it is much more important to say I am a feminist, antiracist militant, for human rights and against poverty, than to say I am a lesbian, an ex-Catholic, mother of xchildren or a grandmother.”

• Another candidate outside of Montréal, the QS stronghold, was Christine Labrie, running in Sherbrooke. Once a major industrial centre, the city has a large student population. It is a milieu she knows well, as she teaches at the Université de Sherbrooke while completing her PhD in women’s studies at the University of Ottawa. She has three small children. She reports that more than 350 persons are in her campaign committee, and some of the party’s public meetings have drawn more than 1,000. Living in Sherbrooke are many people from the cultural communities, “newcomers from Syria and Afghanistan, Colombia, the Congo, even Nepal!” They encounter major problems in finding and using available programs and services, and many are receptive to QS’s proposal to establish centers to help immigrants become integrated in Quebec society, she reports. Christine was elected on October 1.
• Émilise Lessard-Therrien, aged 26, was the Québec solidaire candidate in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, a sprawling riding several hundred kilometres north of Montréal. Its QS membership of 600, more than the PQ’s 550, is the second highest outside of Montréal, exceeded only by Quebec City’s Taschereau riding. Some 200 were involved in the campaign, which has a budget of $40,000. QS is known in the area as the party that wants to nationalize the mines, an unpopular stance, although the party’s platform proposes only to raise mining royalties and to invest the new money in diversifying the economy, particularly in development of agriculture and forestry. Émilise was elected on October 1.

Ricochet is a Quebec-based on-line journal published in both French and English versions that tends to cover progressive causes and campaigns. Its French edition featured a number of videoed debates among candidates from five parties (including the Verts, or Greens). However, its English edition virtually ignored the election,¹⁶ while one of its cofounders, Ethan Cox, published an article in the U.S. magazine Jacobinlargely dismissive of the election’s importance and highly critical of Québec solidaire, especially for its support of independence which he characterized as a “millstone around the party’s neck.”

The progressive independent media in English Canada, such as rabble.ca, likewise ignored the Quebec election for the most part. Once again, it was a story of two solitudes.

Electoral Officer Tries to Chill Debate

As is usual in election campaigns, trade unions and other social movements attempted to inform their members about party positions on issues of particular importance to them. For example, Équiterre and a dozen or so ecology groups published the parties’ replies to a list of 23 proposals involving such issues as climate change, transportation, protection of biodiversity and agriculture. Likewise, the major union centrals posted on their web sites or in their newspapers a similar compilation of party positions on labour and related issues.¹⁷

To their consternation, midway through the campaign the Chief Electoral Officer (DGEQ) sent notices to all of these organizations warning them that publishing such inventories of party positions was a legal offense exposing each to a minimum fine of $10,000. The DGEQ claimed, with no basis in fact or law, that such publicity constituted illegal third-party “election spending.” The official letter sent to these groups claimed that they were prohibited from “publicizing, commenting on, comparing or otherwise illuminating, favourably or not, a political program, or acts or measures taken, advocated or opposed by any candidate or political party.”

The ecology groups – including Équiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, Nature Quebec, etc. – announced they would challenge the DGEQ ruling, even if it meant going to court. The union centrals threw their support behind them.

It appears that the DGEQ declined to follow through on its threat, and most if not all of the groups affected continued to publish their inventories of party positions on their web sites or in their print information. Strangely, the DGEQ made no further attempt to explain its bizarre and unprecedented interpretation of its own governing legislation.

Support for QS

In the end, a number of social movements indicated support for actions or proposals of Québec solidaire.

The Quebec women’s federation (FFQ), in a statement entitled “Beyond Parity,” noted not only that a majority of QS candidates were women, but that almost 20 per cent of QS candidates were from racialized or immigrant minorities, far more than candidates of the other parties (9%, 12% and 13% of the PQ, CAQ and Liberals, respectively).

Karel Mayrand, Quebec director of the Suzuki Foundation, praised QS’s climate change platform. “It is an ambitious, but very realistic plan,” he said. “To make the ecological transition at the speed we need to go now, it is what is necessary.”

Ghislain Picard, Chief of the Quebec-Labrador Assembly of First Nations, in a major statement, warned the next government “that they will have sovereignty on their political agenda: that of the First Nations.” He added:

“Only one party clearly recognizes the rights of our nations. Questioned about the borders of a sovereign Quebec, the co-spokesperson of Québec solidaire, Manon Massé, said ‘We are going to start from the present demarcations of Quebec, and then we are going to discuss with our indigenous brothers and sisters.’ […] Manon Massé is right: the territory of a future sovereign Quebec will have to be negotiated with the governments of the First Nations….

“Forget your discoveries and your conquests. Those colonial reflexes are over and serve to isolate Quebec in its past. Starting October 1, the sovereignty of the First Nations will indeed be on the order of the day.”

In a sign of the times, the widely read pro-PQ on-line and monthly print publication L’Aut’journal, which has consistently attacked QS for (among other things) dividing the independence movement, did not endorse the PQ as a party, but instead called for “voting for independentist and progressive candidates, and more particularly those who are best placed to win election.” Its editor, Pierre Dubuc, had earlier in the campaign praised QS for its call to end public funding of private schools, and Manon Massé for her denunciation of PQ leader Lisée who wanted to shunt pupils in difficulty off to the private schools – which as a rule do not admit such pupils.

The Challenges Ahead

The CAQ victory promises hard times ahead for the Québécois. This may well prove to be the most right-wing Quebec government in half a century. As it implements a new stage in neoliberal reaction, the Quebec left and social movements will be faced with huge challenges. Québec solidaire, with its new strength on the political scene, will come under a lot of pressure to defer, accommodate, compromise the principled positions that have brought it to this point.

Among these challenges, there are some we must begin to discuss, says prominent left activist and author Pierre Beaudet, writing on the eve of the election.

“The necessary transition that QS outlines will not only be difficult, it cannot be done without a formidable mobilization from below. Having 6 or 8 or 15 solidaires in the National Assembly will be a good thing, but the relationship of forces will not change without this mobilization. In this sense, the initiative must be taken up by the popular movements, which above all must not be content to await miracles on the parliamentary scene. The ‘real’ rulers are well aware of this, ensconced as they are in the back rooms of the state and the big corporations, and not just locally. They will continue to engage in a pitiless ‘war of position’ to organize and impose their reactionary policies.

“And these rulers are internationalized, not to say ‘internationalists,’ in their own way. That is all too clear here, a few kilometres from an empire that is dominant…. It was one of the most tragic errors of the PQ… to think for one second that we could ‘cajole’ the United States. To avoid this illusion, we will have to work with the rest of the world, including with the U.S. people themselves who are resisting Trump’s frenzies. Likewise, there are some interesting things happening in the rest of Canada, in particular in relation to struggles around environmental issues. These activists are our brothers and sisters, we must work with them.”

Richard Fidler is a member of Solidarity Ottawa and a member of Québec solidaire. He blogs at Life on the Left.

1. Transposed from Quebec to Canada, with five times the population, this 20,000 would be 100,000; to the United States, with 40 times the population, it would be 800,000.
2. For a detailed explanation of this initial process, see Richard Fidler, “Québec solidaire: A Québécois approach to building a broad left party,” Alternate Routes, Vol. 23 (2012).
3. The QS program is available here (in French only).
4. Under an agreement with Ottawa, signed in 1991, Quebec may determine its annual target for acceptance of most immigrants, while the federal government retains jurisdiction over refugees and family reunification cases.
5. Available in French only.
6. It should be noted that the platform’s target is substantially less than the 67% reduction in emissions by 2030 projected in the QS program. The party’s national committee in May reduced the platform target on the ground that it was now “unrealistic” given the delay to date. (See “Charting a path for Québec solidaire.”) In my view, however, the delay in reducing emissions would be better viewed as cause for greater urgency in tackling the climate crisis, not for a retreat taken out of narrow electoralist concerns.
7. An increasingly popular concept in the United States, an “electric highway” would include electric vehicle fast-charging stations at 25 to 50 mile intervals along major roadways.
8. Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement [Office of public environmental hearings].
9. This point seems to have eluded the author of a Le Devoir editorial attacking the party for its supposed financial irresponsibility. He noted that QS recognizes four actors in its concept of economic development: the non-profit social and community sector, household labour, the public sector, and the private sector, to which it assigns “a certain place, especially to small and medium enterprise.” But “QS proposes a host of generous measures while taking for granted that they will be financed by taxing only the fourth wheel of the coach, the private sector, since the other three pay no tax.” Somehow, he overlooked Québec solidaire’s fiscal framework, which provided a line-by-line breakdown of its projected revenue sources and savings. No matter: “In any event, in the long term QS ‘aims to socialize economic activities,’ the soft version of good old Chinese communism.” Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, “Québec solidaire: L’Avenir ou le passë?,” Le Devoir, September 25, 2018.
10. Union des Producteurs Agricoles, to which all farmers must pay dues.
11. The Quebec Communist party was until recently a recognized “collective” within QS. But it is now a supporter of the Parti québécois. See Guy Roy, “L’appui au PQ reste essentiel,” L’aut’journal, September 20, 2018.
12. Popular Unity Candidacy. Two CUP deputies were invited guests at the December 2017 QS congress. Rioux might have mentioned as well that Massé had earlier sailed on a boat to Gaza as part of the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which QS voted unanimously to endorse at its 2009 congress.
13. See “Québec solidaire: No to an electoral pact with the PQ, Yes to a united front against austerity, for energy transition and for independence,” Life on the Left, May 28, 2017. Another factor is the QS leadership structure, with male and female “co-spokespersons” in place of a “chef” or leader in the usual parliamentary custom. For the purpose of the election campaign and the party leaders’ debates, the QS national committee decided to designate Manon Massé as the party “leader” and “candidate for prime minister,” with Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois the deputy leader.
14. The English debate, unprecedented in Quebec elections, was an initiative of PQ leader Lisée who, like the CAQ and Liberal leaders, is proficient in English. The debate itself was widely questioned in nationalist circles. As former Le Devoir editor Lise Bissonnette said, it was like saying that to be prime minister of Quebec one has to pass an oral test in English. (And now Gilles Duceppe has proposed a French test as well!) Bissonnette noted that it put Manon Massé at a distinct disadvantage, and questioned the very appropriateness of a debate in English as it catered to the mistaken view of some Anglophones that they are second-class citizens. See Pierre Dubuc, “Débat en anglais: Bravo Lise Bissonnette!,” L’aut’journal, September 19, 2018.
15. In a televised CBC English-language interview, Massé was asked about Lisée’s allegations of anticapitalism and Marxism. Her answer: “I think that the revolution that Québec solidaire brings up, it’s a revolution [that] puts climate change and people at the centre…. If you call that socialism, of course we are. If you call it — what did you say, Marxism? — yes, it is.” Massé later said she had not clearly understood the question, and that Québec solidaire “is not Marxist, and no, Québec solidaire is not communist.” Steve Rukavina, CBC News, “Manon Massé misses the Marx.”
16. An exception was a lengthy article exposing the CAQ’s economics expert, running in Saint-Jérome, as a hack for oil interests and a client of the notorious Koch brothers and other U.S. and Canadian ultraright foundations and think tanks. The article was also published in its original French version in several independent media including Presse-toi à gauche.
17. Here, for example, is the four-page election supplement published in the Quebec Federation of Labour’s monthly newspaper Le Monde Ouvrier. Quebec unions do not have a tradition of endorsing or affiliating to political parties, which in any case is illegal under Quebec law.